General > General Technical Chat

Germany shutting down last nuclear power plants on April 15th

<< < (22/56) > >>

Neutrion:

--- Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:31:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: shapirus on April 13, 2023, 05:19:47 pm ---Don't forget the cost of labor and the overall business climate.

--- End quote ---
But then again - industry is also a big polluter, so if you are into green nonsense, wanting to get rid of it kind of makes sense. Also a fair amount of people will likely follow the industry, so less people - less pollution too.
The question is - is that really in the best interest of the people? I understand when unelected bureaucrats like that infamous van der Moron do this crap - since people didn't elect her, she does not have to act in their interests, but when elected officials act like that - AND get away with it - this is truly mind-boggling to me :palm: Are people really that stupid, or that indocrinated?

--- End quote ---
If you don't belive in climate change, than your argumentation is valid, but science doesn't support your case

Siwastaja:

--- Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:11:43 pm ---I did provide a fact - industry is leaving because of energy costs. So a rational government would do something to make those costs go down in order to prevent this outflow, but they are shutting down the cheapest...

--- End quote ---

So let's stop right there. Nuclear was never the cheapest source of energy, and modern facilities now produce some of the most expensive electrical energy, way more expensive than fossil fuels or wind.

You can make your case only in this marginal case of extending the already existing plants and their permits; which is also what I suggested before you decided to label me as some greenist utopia believer. This works out because the big investments in building the NPPs, recruiting staff etc. are behind, the total cost of ownership won't increase.  All you need are some modest maintenance operations. But you can't do this indefinitely. At some point, you have to make the decision of building completely new nuclear. Finland did, and it was an economic disaster. You can then speculate that oh, you did it the wrong way, but for example the goals for safety design have shifted compared to the golden age of "cheap" nuclear in the 1960's to 1980's. That art is somewhat lost, and nuclear is more expensive to build today.

It's not either-or. Germany's energy policy is a combination of right and wrong decisions, successes and failures, irrational political choices and sensible engineering. Germany can be used both as examples how to do the green shift, and how not to do it.

You would grasp all of this in a second if you just looked at Germany's production curves from the last 20 years with your mind open and draw your own conclusions from the data.

It takes a lot of irrational ideology to believe nuclear energy is the cheapest, cleanest, safest and an overall excellent solution to the energy problems, because it's simply not true. Just like it takes a lot of ideology to decide that under any conditions, running the plants for another decade is that big of a no-no.

asmi:

--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pm ---1.The current nuclear shutdown is stupid, agreed, especially because not even the current german government knows whether the people support this decision.
--- End quote ---
Well apparently they do, because when even presumably intelligent and well-educated engineers support it, you can guess what common folk's position is.


--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pm ---2.You hwever were arguing that generally running an energy system on renewable not possible, in the near future. That is what we are arguing with, and that is what you can not support with tech. arguments.
If your argument is the prize only and the sort term buisness gains, than Germany should actually start to invest into coal more, because it would be blody cheap.

--- End quote ---
My tech agrument is very simple - both solar and wind energy ultimately comes from the nuclear fusion, but it's super-inefficient process because of many transformations energy goes through until it's consumed, so converting fusion energy into electric is much more efficient. So this is a long term goal, because at some point humanity will require more energy than reaches the Earth, and so that's the only possible source known at this point.
In the short to mid-term leaving NPPs running not only means having this power available, but also maintaining a cadre of people with nuclear competency. Once NPPs are shut down, these people will either move elsewhere, or will have to change their profession, in both cases competency is lost, and once it's lost, it's going to be very long and expensive to regain.

asmi:

--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:37:27 pm ---If you don't belive in climate change, than your argumentation is valid, but science doesn't support your case

--- End quote ---
Science on the climate change is not conclusive, with a lot of fakes and preposterous extrapolations on both sides, which is why I don't have a position either way. But it doesn't really matter, because moving industry from one place to another doesn't change the grand total of pollution, so it has a zero net effect on a climate. As for what I do believe - I believe in science, but real science, not fake one.

Neutrion:

--- Quote from: asmi on April 13, 2023, 05:48:00 pm ---
--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pm ---1.The current nuclear shutdown is stupid, agreed, especially because not even the current german government knows whether the people support this decision.
--- End quote ---
Well apparently they do, because when even presumably intelligent and well-educated engineers support it, you can guess what common folk's position is.


--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 13, 2023, 05:23:19 pm ---2.You hwever were arguing that generally running an energy system on renewable not possible, in the near future. That is what we are arguing with, and that is what you can not support with tech. arguments.
If your argument is the prize only and the sort term buisness gains, than Germany should actually start to invest into coal more, because it would be blody cheap.

--- End quote ---
My tech agrument is very simple - both solar and wind energy ultimately comes from the nuclear fusion, but it's super-inefficient process because of many transformations energy goes through until it's consumed, so converting fusion energy into electric is much more efficient. So this is a long term goal, because at some point humanity will require more energy than reaches the Earth, and so that's the only possible source known at this point.
In the short to mid-term leaving NPPs running not only means having this power available, but also maintaining a cadre of people with nuclear competency. Once NPPs are shut down, these people will either move elsewhere, or will have to change their profession, in both cases competency is lost, and once it's lost, it's going to be very long and expensive to regain.

--- End quote ---

First, I did not hear many german engineers supporting the current shutdown, not even Greta supports it. Habeck, and the smart Ms Baerbock are not engineers. Edit:(Although I have to recognize Ms Baerbock still managed to make the russians do a 360 grade turn.)

If I understand your way of thinking, you mean until we get the fusion energy, we should keep the current NPP's running. Well, that will not go for indefinite time, and certainly not with most of the NPP being over 40 years old.  As for building new ones see Siwastaja's comment!

Keeping the competence: The competences for those mostly old plants will not be needed for even the new ones, and you can't have those people living forever either.
Or do you have something like scools in Canada where you teach every citizen how to mine coal by hand?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod