Denmark’s wind farms generated 140% power needs on July 9

[Sea Skimmer]

Our oldest unit is Wylfa and she is 52 years old, to be fair she is closing this winter but it took her 3 days to increase load by 200MW last week - a lot of that is likely because she is so old and obsolete (being the last standing MAGNOX plant) that her management are being very gentle with her.

Safety issues also inherently exist with changing power level in that type of reactor that don't apply to other types. But hey, at least its safer then the earlier MAGNOX designs in which large portions of the primary cooling loop piping were behind giant glass windows covering the entire side of the building.

[blowfish]

Or if energy companies like the ones of Germany and Japan had not been caught repeatedly with not giving a shit about things like security protocols.

Even having a Fukushima every couple of years would do less actual damage (though be more visible) than what we're doing currently with fossil fuels. Not to mention that retiring old reactors and replacing them with more inherently safe designs would make it harder for lazy operators to fuck up safety.

A sane solution would be have a baseload nuclear fleet and then add some storage to buffer renewables, instead of going all renewable and having loads of storage or using biomass power plants (which unless run off waste tend to be an ecological nightmare, like hydro in countries that are not covered in loads of river systems).

[Thanas]

Or if energy companies like the ones of Germany and Japan had not been caught repeatedly with not giving a shit about things like security protocols.

Even having a Fukushima every couple of years would do less actual damage (though be more visible) than what we're doing currently with fossil fuels.

I live less than 20km from one of the oldest reactors in Germany (now shut down and chronically unsafe beforehand). I would very much prefer not having a Fukushima every couple of years.

-Not to mention that retiring old reactors and replacing them with more inherently safe designs would make it harder for lazy operators to fuck up safety.

The same thing was said by the German nuclear energy industry before they got caught repeatedly lying about "new designs."

[Broomstick]

It's easy to put up with a Fukushima-level accident if you're living far away, not so much if it's in your backyard. On the flip side, the air pollution from coal plants, while over time more damaging, is also more finely distributed instead of being concentrated in one small location. So instead of a small patch being uninhabitable you get a overall degradation of the environment which goes largely unnoticed. This is why there is more tolerance for coal plants than nuclear, and that state of affairs will continue for the foreseeable future.

[K. A. Pital]

Germany has earthquakes and tsunamis? Oh no, run to the mountains, quick! Take a clue from France and stop spreading anti-nuclear FUD.

[Broomstick]

OK, replace "Fukushima" with "Chernobyl", a nuclear mess that required no force of nature, just human failure.

The point is not that nuclear power is bad or inherently unsafe, but that different sorts of damage are viewed differently, and serious nuclear accidents are not mere theory but have actually happened.

[Purple]

Human failure and reactor design decades out of date with modern safety protocols. You might as well complain about trains being unsafe on account of early steam boilers blowing up.

[Thanas]

Human failure and reactor design decades out of date with modern safety protocols. You might as well complain about trains being unsafe on account of early steam boilers blowing up.

Yes yes, and in theory just storing nuclear waste in rusty barrels and then forgetting about it for two decades should not happen either. But it does.

Germany has earthquakes and tsunamis? Oh no, run to the mountains, quick!

Actually, we do have earthquakes along some prominent fault lines. Guess what our genius nuclear industry did? Built a nuclear reactor directly on top of a fault line. Then they were all suddenly surprised about a fault line being there (meaning they were too stupid to do proper research). EDIT: Worse than I remembered. They tried to run the reactor without having it secured for potential earthquake. It took several years and court cases to force them to secure it. Then they couldn't secure it and it had to be shut down.

Oh and four more reactors are currently at risk as well. See this. (2 page article in German).

[Purple]

Yes yes, and in theory just storing nuclear waste in rusty barrels and then forgetting about it for two decades should not happen either. But it does.

The difference being that metal barrel technology has not gone a long way since the 1970's where as reactor technology has.

[Thanas]

Yes yes, and in theory just storing nuclear waste in rusty barrels and then forgetting about it for two decades should not happen either. But it does.

The difference being that metal barrel technology has not gone a long way since the 1970's where as reactor technology has.

No, the difference is that one is not supposed to "store" them like that in any case.

[K. A. Pital]

Just why is German nuclear industry so much worse than France? I cannot understand this. Nations at the same technical development level. Theoretically it should be no less secure.

[salm]

Maybe because it´s not a federal institution. Instead every state has it´s own "Atomaufsichtsbehörde".

[Purple]

Yes yes, and in theory just storing nuclear waste in rusty barrels and then forgetting about it for two decades should not happen either. But it does.

The difference being that metal barrel technology has not gone a long way since the 1970's where as reactor technology has.

No, the difference is that one is not supposed to "store" them like that in any case.

My point was that unlike barrels the design of atomic reactors has advanced to make them more difficult to ruin through human error.

This said, I really do not see the point of your initial statement. There is after all absolutely nothing that can't be ruined by such willful negligence. So the example you pointed out really does not provide a decent argument against using atomic energy. It's kind of like saying that no one should drive automobiles because you die if you intentionally drive one off a cliff.

[salm]

This said, I really do not see the point of your initial statement. There is after all absolutely nothing that can't be ruined by such willful negligence. So the example you pointed out really does not provide a decent argument against using atomic energy.

Why not? If the people running it have track record of being incompetent and the people being responsible for installing these people don´t manage to make the situtation better it´s best to just give up on the whole thing and try something different.

It´s not like they didn´t have time to improve.

[Thanas]

Just why is German nuclear industry so much worse than France? I cannot understand this. Nations at the same technical development level. Theoretically it should be no less secure.

Because our energy history and our regulatory agencies have a 60 year history of being interdependent and highly corrupt/incompetent. The constant political switchup and department switching (nuclear became a very nice portfolio to be split up and switched from ministry to ministry in coalition negotiations) did not help either.

[Purple]

Why not? If the people running it have track record of being incompetent and the people being responsible for installing these people don´t manage to make the situtation better it´s best to just give up on the whole thing and try something different.

It´s not like they didn´t have time to improve.

Or you can not abandon the best possible option and simply rebuild the regulatory bodies and regulations from scratch. You don't abandon progress because stupid people make you hit a speed bump. If we did, we'd still be living in caves. You just get rid of the stupids and try harder next time.

[Thanas]

Why not? If the people running it have track record of being incompetent and the people being responsible for installing these people don´t manage to make the situtation better it´s best to just give up on the whole thing and try something different.

It´s not like they didn´t have time to improve.

Or you can not abandon the best possible option and simply rebuild the regulatory bodies and regulations from scratch. You don't abandon progress because stupid people make you hit a speed bump. If we did, we'd still be living in caves. You just get rid of the stupids and try harder next time.

They have tried and failed for sixty years. Clearly it is not working without nationalizing the energy sector, which is a) illegal, b) too costly and c) anti-democratic.

[salm]

Why not? If the people running it have track record of being incompetent and the people being responsible for installing these people don´t manage to make the situtation better it´s best to just give up on the whole thing and try something different.

It´s not like they didn´t have time to improve.

Or you can not abandon the best possible option and simply rebuild the regulatory bodies and regulations from scratch. You don't abandon progress because stupid people make you hit a speed bump. If we did, we'd still be living in caves. You just get rid of the stupids and try harder next time.

It´s not politically possible in Germnay, imo. People don´t want nukes.

I don´t think this is entirely bad. It´s good if a couple of countries like Germany and Denmark try to find ways to run their economies on renewables. It´s the only way to find out if it really works.
It also causes money to be thrown at technologies such as storage which will provide useful for other green tech such as electric cars and stuff like that.

Furthermore renewables create a bunch of jobs which is nice.

[Purple]

Don't you just hate it when the mechanisms of democracy allow a legion of fools to make doing the right thing impossible?

[salm]

Don't you just hate it when the mechanisms of democracy allow a legion of fools to make doing the right thing impossible?

In this case, no, because I think a functioning 100% renewable system is a lot more desirable than a functioning economy running on nukes.
In order to find out if it is possible to create a functioning system relying on renewables somebody has to try it out. Therefore these fools are very useful.

[Purple]

In this case, no, because I think a functioning 100% renewable system is a lot more desirable than a functioning economy running on nukes.

Why? They take up more room, are less reliable and scalable and cost more.

[salm]

In this case, no, because I think a functioning 100% renewable system is a lot more desirable than a functioning economy running on nukes.

Why? They take up more room, are less reliable and scalable and cost more.

A functioning system implies that reliability, scale and cost are solve issues.
I´ll gladely trade increased space requirements for not having to care about nuclear waste and the slight risk of an nuclear desaster.

Also, if it works out even more other countries will want green tech and we´ll gladly sell them everything they need.

[Darth Tanner]

I´ll gladely trade increased space requirements for not having to care about nuclear waste and the slight risk of an nuclear desaster.

If you can solve the intermittency, volume and storage issues with renewables to power an entire economy like Germany whilst having solved the cost issue you can also have easily solved the waste and danger issues. Hell waste treamtment and passive safety features already exist.

[Simon_Jester]

Salm, if you say "a functioning 100% renewable system is better than a nuclear system," and ignore the problems of actually making the renewable system function, you are in the territory of dreaming, not of engineering.

It's like saying "a working flying car is better than a normal car," while ignoring the fact that given the current state of technology it is a LOT easier to get the normal car to work than to get the flying car to work.

[salm]

I´ll gladely trade increased space requirements for not having to care about nuclear waste and the slight risk of an nuclear desaster.

If you can solve the intermittency, volume and storage issues with renewables to power an entire economy like Germany whilst having solved the cost issue you can also have easily solved the waste and danger issues. Hell waste treamtment and passive safety features already exist.

That´s fine. Other countries should improve nuclear technologies and technologies dealing with its waste. If the Energiewende doesn´t work it is very good if idiot proof nuclear power is available.
I see no reason why the world should invest only in a single technology.