5 ms·

It's an emotional thing. The German Green party founding ideology was built around stopping nuclear power ("Atomkraft nein danke!"). I remember having discussio

It's an emotional thing. The German Green party founding ideology was built around stopping nuclear power ("Atomkraft nein danke!"). I remember having discussions about the logic back in the 80s with my German compatriots. All these years later the generation that were school kids then are now in power and renewable energy expansion creates the illusion that turning off nuclear power plants now is a good idea. Personally I'd like to see nuclear power be a part of a stable baseline for a few more decades.

nailer 4y ago
It’s also a cultural thing in the west too, a lot of early green movement was built the same way, when half lives were incredibly long. The politics just hasn’t caught up with the science.
- noncoml 4y ago
  What’s the half-life now?
  - nailer 4y ago
    A few human generations. Which is still a problem but not as much as storing waste in a way that a civilisation thousands of years need to understand.
    - noncoml 4y ago
      Was not disputing. Just have no idea about it and was wondering. Thanks! Yeah, a few human generations is definitely a huge improvement!
- simplotek 4y ago
  > (...) when half lives were incredibly long. I'm sorry, did the laws of physics changed in the last couple of decades?
  - nailer 4y ago
    The laws of physics remain the same, however the ability to reduce waste half lives by reusing spent fuel rods has changed, so we don’t need to store waste for ten thousand years. Maybe do a bare minimum of research before posting a snide comment?
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > The laws of physics remain the same, Yes, this means the half lives are still the same, and the original claim was patently nonsense. > however the ability to reduce waste half lives by reusing spent fuel rods has changed, This is also patently false. The advances in nuclear reprocessing only mean that spent fuel rods can be refined and reused, so that the resulting nuclear waste has fewer material with eternal half lives. Still the shortest half lives of the remaining materials still span thousands of years, which in humanity's time scale means they are eternal. > so we don’t need to store waste for ten thousand years. The thing is, you still do. The shortest half lives are tens of thousands of years. Those are the shortest ones. material with longer half lives still exist in spent nuclear fuel, but with lower concentrations. What leads you to believe they don't exist?
      - nailer 4y ago
        > has fewer material with eternal half lives Grammar error aside - ‘eternal’ half lives don’t exist. The time taken for radioactivity to decay by half cannot be and is not 'forever'. That's very basic maths. Again you’re aggressively incorrect.
simplotek 4y ago
> (...) and renewable energy expansion creates the illusion that turning off nuclear power plants now is a good idea. What exactly leads you to believe that shutting off nuclear power is anything other than a good idea? > Personally I'd like to see nuclear power be a part of a stable baseline for a few more decades. It was my understanding that by now it was clear this is all around an awful idea. What leads you to still think otherwise?
- k8wk1 4y ago
  The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas. Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed. The bulk electricity prices are already going down to zero across Germany at random times when the weather is good. Which means the renewable energy business don't get revenue when they generate the most electricity. As a consequence even more subsidies are required to further increase the share of renewables.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas. This is patently false. Isar plants were built in the 70s. Back then Germany's share of renewable energy sources was residual. Since then, Germany started shutting off nuclear and currently over 40% of it's energy needs are met with renewable energy sources. The only way to claim that Germany is replacing nuclear with coal and gas is if you opt to go the disingenuous route and claim that some coal and gas power plants went online while nuclear plants were being shut down. > Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed. What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?
    - k8wk1 4y ago
      > This is patently false. It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand. It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans. Since the demand does not change, what other generation would not be running in this case? It is coal and gas. Thus, by shutting down nuclear, several coal or gas power plants are running instead of idling somewhere. > What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure? Success in this case is replacement of dirty electricity generation and not using the rest of Europe as a giant battery to solve the unpredictability of renewable generation. The limits of easy renewable deployments are becoming exhausted and it will become much harder to increase the share of renewables even more. I think we agree that it's great that Germany runs so many renewables already. But long-term objective is much more and it's not clear that it will be achieved.

nailer 4y ago

It’s also a cultural thing in the west too, a lot of early green movement was built the same way, when half lives were incredibly long. The politics just hasn’t caught up with the science.

noncoml 4y ago
What’s the half-life now?
- nailer 4y ago
  A few human generations. Which is still a problem but not as much as storing waste in a way that a civilisation thousands of years need to understand.
  - noncoml 4y ago
    Was not disputing. Just have no idea about it and was wondering. Thanks! Yeah, a few human generations is definitely a huge improvement!
simplotek 4y ago
> (...) when half lives were incredibly long. I'm sorry, did the laws of physics changed in the last couple of decades?
- nailer 4y ago
  The laws of physics remain the same, however the ability to reduce waste half lives by reusing spent fuel rods has changed, so we don’t need to store waste for ten thousand years. Maybe do a bare minimum of research before posting a snide comment?
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > The laws of physics remain the same, Yes, this means the half lives are still the same, and the original claim was patently nonsense. > however the ability to reduce waste half lives by reusing spent fuel rods has changed, This is also patently false. The advances in nuclear reprocessing only mean that spent fuel rods can be refined and reused, so that the resulting nuclear waste has fewer material with eternal half lives. Still the shortest half lives of the remaining materials still span thousands of years, which in humanity's time scale means they are eternal. > so we don’t need to store waste for ten thousand years. The thing is, you still do. The shortest half lives are tens of thousands of years. Those are the shortest ones. material with longer half lives still exist in spent nuclear fuel, but with lower concentrations. What leads you to believe they don't exist?
    - nailer 4y ago
      > has fewer material with eternal half lives Grammar error aside - ‘eternal’ half lives don’t exist. The time taken for radioactivity to decay by half cannot be and is not 'forever'. That's very basic maths. Again you’re aggressively incorrect.

simplotek 4y ago

> (...) and renewable energy expansion creates the illusion that turning off nuclear power plants now is a good idea. What exactly leads you to believe that shutting off nuclear power is anything other than a good idea? > Personally I'd like to see nuclear power be a part of a stable baseline for a few more decades. It was my understanding that by now it was clear this is all around an awful idea. What leads you to still think otherwise?

k8wk1 4y ago
The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas. Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed. The bulk electricity prices are already going down to zero across Germany at random times when the weather is good. Which means the renewable energy business don't get revenue when they generate the most electricity. As a consequence even more subsidies are required to further increase the share of renewables.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas. This is patently false. Isar plants were built in the 70s. Back then Germany's share of renewable energy sources was residual. Since then, Germany started shutting off nuclear and currently over 40% of it's energy needs are met with renewable energy sources. The only way to claim that Germany is replacing nuclear with coal and gas is if you opt to go the disingenuous route and claim that some coal and gas power plants went online while nuclear plants were being shut down. > Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed. What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?
  - k8wk1 4y ago
    > This is patently false. It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand. It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans. Since the demand does not change, what other generation would not be running in this case? It is coal and gas. Thus, by shutting down nuclear, several coal or gas power plants are running instead of idling somewhere. > What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure? Success in this case is replacement of dirty electricity generation and not using the rest of Europe as a giant battery to solve the unpredictability of renewable generation. The limits of easy renewable deployments are becoming exhausted and it will become much harder to increase the share of renewables even more. I think we agree that it's great that Germany runs so many renewables already. But long-term objective is much more and it's not clear that it will be achieved.