19 ms·

> Now we have to build-up renewable decentralized energy during the next decades. That's the common goal here in Germany. Can it be done quickly enough to prev

> Now we have to build-up renewable decentralized energy during the next decades. That's the common goal here in Germany. Can it be done quickly enough to prevent the damage from climate change? If not, the problems of nuclear may be much less than the alternative. > * protests were suppressed with military-like police, escalated almost into civil war I don't mind a little hyperbole, but many people reading this have no idea what actually happened. Could you describe it?

lispm 12y ago
Can you build enough nuclear power to prevent the damage from climate change? I don't think so.
- ars 12y ago
  Why not? It would be extremely easy. The only reason they don't make more nuclear power plants is they are slightly more expensive on a KWh level than natural gas. Making them was never the problem.
  - graeme 12y ago
    I think that it was a mistake to shut down nuclear plants, rather than fossil fuel plants. That said, if we stopped using fossil energy, wouldn't we find nuclear plants become much more expensive to build? They're built using fossil energy. (Or significantly reduced fossil energy, thereby raising its price)
    - pdonis 12y ago
      > They're built using fossil energy Only because fossil energy is currently cheaper. If it were more expensive, you would see all kinds of construction starting to use electric-powered equipment that used non-fossil-fuel electricity.
      - graeme 12y ago
        But isn't that non-fossil energy built with fossil energy? EROI is what's motivating my comments. Fossil energy has a higher EROI than other sources, currently.
        pdonis 12y ago
        > But isn't that non-fossil energy built with fossil energy? Not if you use non-fossil electricity to power all the steps in the build process. I should have clarified that that's what I was envisioning. > Fossil energy has a higher EROI than other sources, currently. Actually, I don't think that's currently true for nuclear; the EROEI figures for nuclear that I've seen seem way off, even if breeder reactors are left out of the equation. I don't think a lot of people realize just how much energy there is in a kilogram of uranium, compared to a kilogram of fossil fuel.
  - lispm 12y ago
    > Making them was never the problem. You might want to work for Areva. They need help. In western countries it is quite difficult to build a new nuclear power plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction_delays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#C... For the next two decades it will be difficult to even keep the current number of nuclear power plants online.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      "In 2009, Petteri Tiippana, the director of STUK's nuclear power plant division, told the BBC that it was difficult to deliver nuclear power plant projects on schedule because builders were not used to working to the exacting standards required on nuclear construction sites, since so few new reactors had been built in recent years." We're certainly not helping ourselves by delaying/canceling more nuclear projects because of stupidly high amounts of FUD in the society regarding nuclear powers.
      - lispm 12y ago
        The second one in France is not doing much better. Work in China on similar ones is faster. But it is unclear what's actually going on, due to a lack of transparency.
  - ljf 12y ago
    It's cheaper if you heavily subsidise it and remove all future (unknown) decommissioning and waste storage costs and let the state pick those up...
    - D_Alex 12y ago
      To be fair, using natural gas has an unknown future cost (global warming) which is not (properly and generally) reflected in either the cost of the gs fired power stations or the gas fuel itself.
      - ljf 12y ago
        Total agree, we should also be charging the coal/gas fired energy producers for the actual clean up costs, then it would be interesting to see which people want to invest in.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  You can't undo what's already been done, but if you want to stop damaging it further, or if you don't want to see our civilization collapsing/being seriously disturbed by running out of fossil fuel and therefore you want to go all green before that happens, then yes, you can build enough nuclear plants and absolutely positively have to. This book [0] goes through math of pretty much all energy sources and one of the conclusions the author reaches is that if you want to cover all of our power needs with green energy, renewables alone ain't gonna cut it. [0] - http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
ars 12y ago
> Can it be done quickly enough to prevent the damage from climate change? Actually the renewable push in Germany is accelerating climate change, not preventing it. They don't get enough sun to make solar cells worth it, yet they do it anyway. What it means is they will never make EROEI for them. On paper everything is wonderful (as a country emissions are low), but actually all they are doing is shipping the emissions to China which is where the solar cells are made.
- Retric 12y ago
  That's pure FUD. EROEI for solar in Germany vary's a lot but it's from a physics standpoint it's ~20x. However, EROEI has no set standard and it's easy to fudge the numbers. Yet, gasoline generally ends up as less than 1 using those metrics. PS: Though from an economic and EROEI standpoint Rooftop solar is significantly less appealing than solar farms.
  - ars 12y ago
    No it isn't. EROEI for solar barely reaches 5 in sunny areas, in Germany it would not surprise me if it was below 1. If the EROEI was so high they would not need massive government subsidies to encourage adoption - people would do it without encouragement.
    - throwaway5752 12y ago
      You don't understand the difference between EROEI or ROI if you believe this. This is a really fundamental problem with your point, and it's like not grasping big-O notation in algorithmic analysis. Edit: I take it back. Based on your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248722 you are either dense as a rock or spreading FUD like the preceding comment suggested. I suspect I am not engaging in a good faith discussion. Edit 2: Just something to leave you with. Nuclear disposal costs are externalized (deferred), educating the workforce is externalized (navy), risk is externalized (indemnified), fuel is currently underpriced (megatons to megawatts), construction (highest single input cost) is massively subsidized, and in the end it's still burning unrenewable fuel so even assuming it's cheap and we never have an accident we're just kicking the can down the road a couple of hundred years.

lispm 12y ago

Can you build enough nuclear power to prevent the damage from climate change? I don't think so.

ars 12y ago
Why not? It would be extremely easy. The only reason they don't make more nuclear power plants is they are slightly more expensive on a KWh level than natural gas. Making them was never the problem.
- graeme 12y ago
  I think that it was a mistake to shut down nuclear plants, rather than fossil fuel plants. That said, if we stopped using fossil energy, wouldn't we find nuclear plants become much more expensive to build? They're built using fossil energy. (Or significantly reduced fossil energy, thereby raising its price)
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > They're built using fossil energy Only because fossil energy is currently cheaper. If it were more expensive, you would see all kinds of construction starting to use electric-powered equipment that used non-fossil-fuel electricity.
    - graeme 12y ago
      But isn't that non-fossil energy built with fossil energy? EROI is what's motivating my comments. Fossil energy has a higher EROI than other sources, currently.
      - pdonis 12y ago
        > But isn't that non-fossil energy built with fossil energy? Not if you use non-fossil electricity to power all the steps in the build process. I should have clarified that that's what I was envisioning. > Fossil energy has a higher EROI than other sources, currently. Actually, I don't think that's currently true for nuclear; the EROEI figures for nuclear that I've seen seem way off, even if breeder reactors are left out of the equation. I don't think a lot of people realize just how much energy there is in a kilogram of uranium, compared to a kilogram of fossil fuel.
- lispm 12y ago
  > Making them was never the problem. You might want to work for Areva. They need help. In western countries it is quite difficult to build a new nuclear power plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction_delays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#C... For the next two decades it will be difficult to even keep the current number of nuclear power plants online.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    "In 2009, Petteri Tiippana, the director of STUK's nuclear power plant division, told the BBC that it was difficult to deliver nuclear power plant projects on schedule because builders were not used to working to the exacting standards required on nuclear construction sites, since so few new reactors had been built in recent years." We're certainly not helping ourselves by delaying/canceling more nuclear projects because of stupidly high amounts of FUD in the society regarding nuclear powers.
    - lispm 12y ago
      The second one in France is not doing much better. Work in China on similar ones is faster. But it is unclear what's actually going on, due to a lack of transparency.
- ljf 12y ago
  It's cheaper if you heavily subsidise it and remove all future (unknown) decommissioning and waste storage costs and let the state pick those up...
  - D_Alex 12y ago
    To be fair, using natural gas has an unknown future cost (global warming) which is not (properly and generally) reflected in either the cost of the gs fired power stations or the gas fuel itself.
    - ljf 12y ago
      Total agree, we should also be charging the coal/gas fired energy producers for the actual clean up costs, then it would be interesting to see which people want to invest in.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
You can't undo what's already been done, but if you want to stop damaging it further, or if you don't want to see our civilization collapsing/being seriously disturbed by running out of fossil fuel and therefore you want to go all green before that happens, then yes, you can build enough nuclear plants and absolutely positively have to. This book [0] goes through math of pretty much all energy sources and one of the conclusions the author reaches is that if you want to cover all of our power needs with green energy, renewables alone ain't gonna cut it. [0] - http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/

ars 12y ago

> Can it be done quickly enough to prevent the damage from climate change? Actually the renewable push in Germany is accelerating climate change, not preventing it. They don't get enough sun to make solar cells worth it, yet they do it anyway. What it means is they will never make EROEI for them. On paper everything is wonderful (as a country emissions are low), but actually all they are doing is shipping the emissions to China which is where the solar cells are made.

Retric 12y ago
That's pure FUD. EROEI for solar in Germany vary's a lot but it's from a physics standpoint it's ~20x. However, EROEI has no set standard and it's easy to fudge the numbers. Yet, gasoline generally ends up as less than 1 using those metrics. PS: Though from an economic and EROEI standpoint Rooftop solar is significantly less appealing than solar farms.
- ars 12y ago
  No it isn't. EROEI for solar barely reaches 5 in sunny areas, in Germany it would not surprise me if it was below 1. If the EROEI was so high they would not need massive government subsidies to encourage adoption - people would do it without encouragement.
  - throwaway5752 12y ago
    You don't understand the difference between EROEI or ROI if you believe this. This is a really fundamental problem with your point, and it's like not grasping big-O notation in algorithmic analysis. Edit: I take it back. Based on your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248722 you are either dense as a rock or spreading FUD like the preceding comment suggested. I suspect I am not engaging in a good faith discussion. Edit 2: Just something to leave you with. Nuclear disposal costs are externalized (deferred), educating the workforce is externalized (navy), risk is externalized (indemnified), fuel is currently underpriced (megatons to megawatts), construction (highest single input cost) is massively subsidized, and in the end it's still burning unrenewable fuel so even assuming it's cheap and we never have an accident we're just kicking the can down the road a couple of hundred years.