Hacker News Reader

Comment by locallost | Hacker News Reader

They were not, there is even less coal used since nuclear plants were shut down than before. Nuclear and coal are getting continuously replaced by renewables. Coal end date is set to either 2030 or 2038 (I forget).

The country people should be complaining about is Poland. It's the worst emitter of co2 in Europe and it will not do anything about it for 10-20 years because it wants to build nuclear plants.

View on HN

> They were not, there is even less coal used since nuclear plants were shut down than before.

They were counterfactually. This means that if nuclear hadn't been shut down, much less coal energy would have been needed.

> The country people should be complaining about is Poland. It's the worst emitter of co2 in Europe and it will not do anything about it for 10-20 years because it wants to build nuclear plants.

No, people should complain about Germany. Nuclear power can replace coal. Which is why France produces much less CO2 than Germany:

https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg

People should complain about emissions and the lack of emission reduction. If Germany is producing a lot more than France, and this concerns you, you should complain even more bitterly about Poland because their emissions are 1) 2x as bad as Germany 2) in contrast go Germany they are not going down since the country is dreaming of nuclear energy.

Renewables can and do replace coal, as they obviously did in Germany. It does not really matter if you are ideologically aligned with another energy source, for whatever reason.

> If Germany is producing a lot more than France, and this concerns you, you should complain even more bitterly about Poland

Whataboutism.

Upd: I see you also do it elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36599216.

People should complain about emissions and emission reduction. Are emissions too high in Germany? Yes. Are they going down? Yes. Does it have a set date to remove coal from electricity production? Yes. So good things and a bright future, yet a lot of complaints.

In case of Poland neither is the case. I have yet to see an article complaining about Poland, despite it being neither good, nor it having a bright future. Why is that?

We do complain about Poland. But this is a thread about Germany.

> Does it have a set date to remove coal from electricity production? Yes.

The date is simply ridiculous. 2030 or so AFAIK? We expect much more effort from such a developed country.

I am very interested in this topic and I assure you that nobody complains about Poland. I've seen even praise for their decision to prolong this situation and build nuclear plants. On the other hand, a country very much in deserve of praise like Germany is a constant target of criticism by various nuclear lobby groups, astroturfers and the like. You can see the effect even here on HN, it's a very common topic that "Germany replaced nuclear with coal", which is just simply false.

I do praise Poland for building nuclear plants. This is the only existing solution to the climate catastrophe. Also, it's one of the the most safe energy sources.

This is not "simply false". This is effectively true, even though it might not be the intention. There are many similar discussions about it on HN. See for example this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870.

So Germany uses less coal continuously and plans to stop using it 2030. You say: terrible and too slow.

Poland uses a lot more coal, has no real plan to reduce it, and wants to continue at the same level for the next 15 years or so. You say: awesome job.

You can't be serious.

I said I praised Poland for building nuclear plants. I didn't say they did everything perfectly.

There is no difference between building plants and producing the vast majority of your electricity from coal for the next 15 years. The latter is the consequence of the former.

You seem to imply that building nuclear takes forever. This is wrong.

There is no need to imply when we have data. Building nuclear takes forever.

Yes, because of government regulations that force safety to a much, much higher standards than those for coal.

So at least we agree it takes forever and is thus harmful when it comes to emissions.

Harmful are stupid regulations helping coal, and also people who don't get that damage from coal is so strong that even ancient nuclear reactors are safer, including Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Whataboutism.

Nuclear's long build times help coal plants stay open and are thus bad for emissions. Here [1] an article about Poland deciding to build nuclear plants FOUR YEARS AGO. During that time they did not displace a single molecule of co2 from their worst in Europe electricity production. The construction didn't even begin yet, and when it does it will again take years in the best case. If it takes as much as it did in other European countries recently, we are talking about 20 years easily.

Those that praise this strategy are either naive, misinformed, or funded by the nuclear lobby.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-18/poland-mo...

> Here [1] an article about Poland deciding to build nuclear plants FOUR YEARS AGO.

Cherry picking. Other countries build nuclear reactors just fine if they want. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36333904

Except we were talking specifically about Poland for which you said you support what they do. Now that you know the facts do you still support prolonging the use of so much coal? In 4 years they've done nothing, and won't do anything for at least a decade. Germany's coal exit 2030 you called too slow. Will you reconsider?

France started building a prototype replacement in Flamanville for those reactors and with a bit of luck it might be finished this year. After 20 years of development.

Poland must change the regulation, not give up on fighting climate change. Even trying and failing is better than not trying at all, as you suggest.

The French prototypes are now ready and tested. Why not use them?

Which regulation?

They gave up on climate change when they decided to invest in nuclear energy. They prioritized nuclear power over removal of coal. If the whole world takes this viewpoint we will decarbonize in a few centuries.

The French plants were designed to run for 30 years, their replacement was supposed to be the EPR and the construction on Flamanville started almost 20 years ago. The program has been a colossal failure.

The problem is you don't know anything.

Removal of coal? Show me any reliable, scalable, affordable method.

You can build both nuclear and solar and wind at the same time.

Poland will stick to coal because of local economic interests, it has nothing to do with nuclear.

> They were not, there is even less coal used since nuclear plants were shut down than before.

Well.. there is no reason why there shouldn’t be zero coal use before anyone starts shutting sown nuclear power plants. For one thing the issues with nuclear waste storage are a joke compared to the radiation and other pollution continuously emitted by burning coal…

If your resources are infinite you can. But they are not so you can't.

Grids in Europe are interconnected. So you can build nuclear and and import wind/solar from the surrounding countries which would effectively be the same.

Or you can build solar and wind, which is what Germany is doing to replace coal. Successfully. Don't really see your point.

Solar and wind alone can’t provide 100%. Not yet anyway..

> Successfully

Yet the amount of energy generated by burning coal has only increased.

*https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...

The data on that link says:

2019: 114.0 + 57.4

2020: 91.7 + 42.8

2021: 110.1 + 54.6

2022: 116.2 + 64.4

When the first wave of decomissions came in 2011, the number was

2011: 150 + 112 [1]

Straight question, to see if you can answer it: is it going up or down? Furthermore, even in the data you are posting, it's going down every year except last. And it went up last year because France's nuclear energy failed and needed to be supported [2].

About 100%: perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. Historically, the naysayers have been incorrect for decades. Here [3], an advertisement from the German nuclear lobby from the 90s, that makes a case for young people: don't be against nuclear, we need it, renewables can NEVER account for more than 4% of our total production.

Fortunately nobody listened to them.

[1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrag...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/even-crisis-germany-...

[3] https://twitter.com/wolfibey/status/1370115862523416577

Cannot answer the question.

afaik poland agreed to build a nuclear plant

Electricity generation is decreasing year over year in Germany since 2015… but the fact is that it should be increasing to electrify heating and transportation. What is really happening is that industries are moving out of Germany to help pretend that the country CO2 emissions are better as no one really count imported CO2 in finished product.

Perhaps, but it was until now not electrifying heating and transportation, so reduction is obviously a positive thing. Nothing beats emissions of a kWh you saved. The question might be, was there something sacrificed to do that, e.g. did economy suffer? This would be bad, but it's not the case, the GDP is still going up. The savings are related to energy efficiency and this will reap benefits basically forever.

There is no saving (or marginally) it’s just heavy industries and energy consuming process leaving Germany (BASF for instance). Overall just a displacement of the problem. We don’t care about GDP, what matters is global CO2 emission. In 2023 13.4% of new cars are electric in Germany but electricity production is the lowest in 15 years, go figure.

Sorry, but this is total nonsense. I realize it's not in the spirit of HN, but it's obvious you did not check any data at all.

Ok energy-charts.info is providing all info regarding installed power and electricity generation for Germany.

For heavy industries leaving Germany: * https://cen.acs.org/business/finance/BASF-cutting-back-main-... * https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/24/basf-cut-jo... * https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2022-10-20/germanys-glas... * https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-industry-europe-ener...

Here you can see that industrial part of the GDP is shrinking: * https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/manufacturing-value-add...

What are your sources?

BASF is a drop in the bucket and it left not because of high electricity prices like you claimed, but high natural gas prices which they directly use for production. e.g. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/basf-could-cut-outpu...

> BASF is already reducing production of ammonia, which relies heavily on natural gas, and sourcing some it its ammonia needs from outside Europe, where gas prices are lower.

Heavy industries in general will take a while to electrify (globally), you can read on the challenges of that e.g. here https://www.iea.org/articles/the-challenge-of-reaching-zero-...

So again, sorry, but you are off.

Basic fact you don’t seem to grasp is that electricity price in Europe are directly dependent on gas price as the price is governed by the price of the last capacity called which in Europe are gas driven… Chemical plants but not only as the articles mentioned but glass ceramic etc are using large amount of electricity. The current decrease in electricity usage(that’s not only happening in Germany but throughout all Western Europe) is caused by industrial process moving out of Europe.

You seem to be hopping from one vaguely connected argument to another. I am aware that gas price sets the electricity price when deployed, but it has nothing to do with BASF, they were hit hard by specifically gas prices because they use gas. I already posted the link(s). And furthermore, that BASF went to China in 2023 did not affect electricity use in 2020, nor is BASF responsible for 50TWh of electricity per year. There is no grand scale industry movement out of Germany.

What's wrong in building nuclear power plants?

And before teaching lessons to Eastern European countries, remember that the West had 50 years after the WWII to build up the economy and infrastructure. It would be only fair to let Eastern European countries to develop for the same period, without demanding them pay the costs of higher energy prices.

What's wrong in terms of emissions is that they take forever to plan and build. During which time, Poland will continue to produce its electricity almost exclusively from coal. These are real emissions that can't be made up for once the nuclear plants are finished. The alternative is to replace a lot of the coal really fast with renewables. Further more, it's cheaper so you can replace a lot more than with nuclear.

There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades.

But regulations are what makes nuclear energy supposedly safe. Faster build times aren't worth it if we risk nuclear meltdowns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias

It's easy to posit yourself as taking the "necessary risks", but you haven't demonstrated that:

- nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis

- unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis

- the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis

Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.

> - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis

This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987

> - unsafe nuclear energy

It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/Fil...

> - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis

The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change

> This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area.

Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes.

> It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima)

Is it a physical fact of life they are safer (as in, you can't to do anything wrong) or is it our regulations that make them so safe? The regulations you want to remove?

> The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations

Okay, did I say anything else?

> You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis.

Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that.

> or is it our regulations that make them so safe?

Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.

> Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that.

Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment?

> Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.

I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote:

> There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades.

Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.

> Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment?

First, they couldn't until now. They might be able to at some point, but do you want to take that risk? We already have a safe solution.

> First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations.

Actually it does show that even Chernobyl's regulations were sufficient to be safer than almost any other energy source today.

> Yet you want to remove even more regulations

Where did I say that?

> Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that

Where did I say that? I would appreciate a quote.

> Both are unsafe.

Compared to what? My link proofs the opposite.

That's a favorite of mine because at the same time those same regulations are cited as the reason why the plants are incredibly safe.

The changing regulations over time add to the complexity.

Here is an article [1] by the American Nuclear Society detailing all the improvements that happened since the incident at Three Mile Island happened. It does not list these as negative, but positive, since they improve safety. So the industry thinks safe is correct, but then some like to pretend that removing these would make things only cheaper, never less safe. It cannot be true.

[1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3903/insights-from-the-thre...

> The country people should be complaining about is Poland. It's the worst emitter of co2 in Europe

I don't have the numbers with me so I cannot check this right now, but I believe your comment to be incorrect. Germany must have more CO2 emissions than Poland from Coal alone since Germany is the largest user of energy from coal burning in Europe.

Sorry, no. Check the data.

I looked up some data on this now, and Germany is ahead of Poland in CO2 emissions from Coal: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1014423/co2-emissions-fr...

There is also a page on the German Wikipedia showing CO2 emissions from Gas, Coal and Oil burning and again Germany is significantly above Poland: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_gr%C3%B6%C3%9Ften_Ko...

Those are absolute numbers. Germany's population is more than twice that of Poland.

Germany's electricity production is 25% coal where as it is over 70% coal in Poland.

Sure, but we are not talking about per capita co2 emissions but the worst emitter, and that is Germany and not Poland. The world does not care about per capita anything, it cares about absolutes.

So I guess the problem might be solved if Germany dissolves into 16 smaller countries, this will surely reduce its emissions drastically. I haven't thought of that brilliant angle of tackling the climate crisis, just reduce the size of countries.

Do you have other ideas? At this rate we might solve the problem within a couple hours.

Honestly I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com