Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes, Germany needed _more_ nuclear.

> Oh, and let's not forget what happens when one too many power plants have to undergo maintenance while a few others have to shut down temporarily due to a heat wave...

Let's actually forget it. The largest nuclear power plant in the US is in a freaking _desert_ and is cooled by evaporating treated wastewater. Nuclear power plants can work just fine during the heatwaves, the plants just need to be designed for that.



> The largest nuclear power plant in the US is in a freaking _desert_ ... the plants just need to be designed for that.

That's two key issues here that you just carelessly tossed aside. For one, central Europe doesn't have deserts or any large uninhabited regions for that matter. The US has a population density of 33.6 ppl/mk², compared to 236/km² in Germany. All nuclear power plants in Europe are therefore located near rivers and cooled accordingly.

Secondly, building nuclear power plants takes a shitload of money and time. Case in point:

* Hinkley Point C UK - significantly delayed, to date 50% cost overrun; only continued after the UK government gave long term guarantees, including fixed minimum electricity prices

* Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Finland - 13 years delayed, 45% cost overrun

* Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 France - 12 years behind schedule, a staggering 5x cost overrun

* Plant Vogtle Unit 3-4 USA - massive delays and 2.4x cost overrun, Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 due to losses from its nuclear business during construction

* etc.

So no, Germany didn't need _more_ nuclear.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: