Hacker News Reader

This is essentially it.

Nuclear power has been economically inefficient for a long time.

This is true for many, many economies. Even in places like Japan and South Korea, nuclear energy is more expensive than seaborn LNG.

The reason that nuclear energy has been supported is the "unspoken" externality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency

Having a "peaceful" nuclear plant, means you can throw together a bomb pretty quickly if needed.

Hence countries like Japan/Korea, with active space and rocketry programs as well as a thriving domestic nuclear power industry, have been considered "quasi-nuclear powers" by many. Their "time to slap together an atom bomb," given a large national supply of nuclear physicists is not that long.

Germany, is very supporting of pacifism.

Hence, since the German approach to foreign policy is fundamentally "we don't want nuclear weapons because we really don't want to engage in warfare, because warfare is immoral." They don't want nuclear power.

There is enough spent fuel stored in America and around the world to reprocess and enrich fuel for thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads. There is also enough energy in spent fuel already stored that, if reprocessed, could fuel existing reactors for decades. Jimmy Carter broke the fuel cycle when he outlawed spent fuel reprocessing using the reasoning that it risked nuclear proliferation.

> in America

Yeah, and didn't you realise most countries in the world despise America?

Keep in mind the non-American perspective.

> Germany, is very supporting of pacifism.

I'd say that pacifism only works as long as nobody cares to attack you, or you have someone else around, much stronger than yourself, to protect you.

That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil. I'm afraid it's not a realistic long-term policy.

Whether it's a good idea or not doesn't matter.

Germany practices it.

Germany was told to be supporting of pacifism by the Americans after WW2. But with the Americans signaling that they are no longer willing to play world police, a shift in that attitude is a matter of time.

> That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil.

Also, lets not conflate national interests with good and evil. That's the propaganda talking.

I think the sentiment that pacifism externalises the costs of dealing with violence to others, is spot on in both a personal and country context.

isn't the equipment to produce weapon-grade fissile materiel kinda different from those used in power production? So the time "time to slap together an atom bomb" would still be quite long. Also when talking talking about nuclear's price vs LNG, another factor to take into consideration is energy dependence on foreign suppliers

Germany spends already around 1.5% of their GDP on energy subsidies, and is the 8th largest in term of subsidies per GDP, and in absolute numbers, the highest one by 200% to the nearest country. €50 billions is spent each year, with a bit over 50% going to renewables and around 30% going to fossil fuels.

I can understand in some ways that they do not want to spend more than €50 billions a year on subsidies. It is already a lot of tax money. The question however is what they are getting for those €50 billions they are already spending, and if the result is a desirable one. Being dependent on Russian gas and oil is a pretty high price to pay, especially when it help fund invasion forces into EU.

(Source: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the...)

Ukraine has a significant potential for gas and shale fields. One of the reasons the EU has been getting friendly with Ukraine. Putin knows his way of life, and the Russian budget to consider doing something like this, is gone when those become active.

The thing that's a little crass to say right now, is that: Russia imploding to focus internally, Putin gone, Ukraine integrating further into the EU, is like a full bingo card of items that was strictly in the 'keep dreaming' section 3 months ago.

Now it is the best outcome for the EU. Still unlikely, but not categorically impossible.

> Worldwide the number of operational reactors is decreasing anyway

Really? I thought China (and maybe India) was building many more.

China is building some, and saying they will build more. But they are not obliged to follow through. We should only count the ones that are actually under construction.

> German multinationals (in the energy sector such as Siemens, Wintershall) have removed it from their strategies because Nuclear technologies inefficient and bear a lot of risks. New reactor types don't work as promised.

Do you mean NuScale or Hitachi BWRX-300?

I'm not an expert in reactors, but I mean the European Pressurized Water Reactor EPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) built by French Company Areva and, previously, Siemens. It has a lot of problems from what I hear. I don't know anything about the other ones you mentioned.

Those are significant problems that politicians, businesses, and the public have correctly identified.

Is the perception that Germany will be better off with the problems that dropping nuclear creates, or are those not acknowledged?

I'd estimate 15-20% of the German population to be pro-nuclear (mainly those leaning to the political right), 50% are indifferent, and 30-35% against nuclear energies. Of course you'll find some conservatives against it (e.g. wealthy homeowners), and you'll find a few leftist technologists that support nuclear energy.

Now the political agenda is (and has been for more than 20 years) to promote renewables. For baseline demand (that renewables cannot reliably provide) Germany is betting on Biogas and better storage mechanisms.

The current administration is left-leaning. The Green Party was founded in the 1980s by environmentalists which made it their mission to get rid of nuclear.

I'd say that the public knows that these types of energy supply have problemens too. And the debate is ongoing.