3 ms·

German 'environmentalists' (I use that word ironically) are indeed something else. They did this after Fukushima. Are they afraid there'll be a baltic sea tsuna

German 'environmentalists' (I use that word ironically) are indeed something else. They did this after Fukushima. Are they afraid there'll be a baltic sea tsunami?

detaro 10y ago
To be fair, it wasn't the environmentalists who suddenly got the urge to do this after Fukushima: the anti-nuclear movement had been talking about that for decades, and surely not for fears of "baltic sea tsunamis". Fukushima was when the then-current government suddenly found it opportune to quickly reverse their reversal of the plan to slowly phase out nuclear power. And how to deal with energy mix problems is a topic with widely varying opinions among people you might classify as environmentalists.
- johansch 10y ago
  Are you saying the german anti-nuclear people are largely distinct from the german 'environmentalists'?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - detaro 10y ago
    I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that. My comment primarily points out that framing it as something that "environmentalists did on a whim after Fukushima, because Tsunamis oh so funny" is gross misrepresentation. Also that "environmentalist" is a very broad label. It's not like being anti-nuclear is a niche sentiment. A large percentage of the general population is "anti-nuclear" in that they support existing plans (=laws) to phase out nuclear power. E.g. in 2010, before Fukushima, ~50 % didn't want delays to the plans, and only 25 % supported large delays to it. The government added delays. Fukushima happened, and within days they changed their opinion back and reaffirmed the old plans (more or less). If you look at people more actively supporting the movement, sometimes being part of it since decades ago, when it was a niche opinion, I'd say in many cases they are less motivated by protecting the environment in general than they are by protecting humans, or protesting bad policies. But there is of course a big overlap with environmentalists.
    - sirtaj 10y ago
      I remember discussing this with a German acquaintance in the early 90s. Extremely anti-nuclear because of Chernobyl and the food contamination scares in its aftermath, and it didn't seem like a niche view at the time. Presumably that legacy lives on.
_ph_ 10y ago
No German power plant is in danger of a tsunami indeed. But what was worrisome about the Fukushima disaster was, that the tsunami was the trigger, but the nuclear disaster was mostly created by human failure. The reactor was too old, and failed purely because the lack of electrical power and the disability to deal with it. So, how many possible failure modes we have not considered also? Not to mention, that we don't have a good plan about what to do with the nuclear waste. Another component is, that the nuclear plants are only operating part-time as more and more maintenance is required, France just faced severe power shortage, as too many of their aging nuclear plants where down due to maintenance. I certainly would be happy, if we used less coal. And currently, quite a few coal plants in Germany are running rather for the profits of the operators than for the grids requirements. As the renewable energies grow, very soon quite a few coal plants are going to be decommissioned and replaced with on-demand gas power.
- nickik 10y ago
  Seems to solution is to replace reactors with newer better saver ones.
  - _ph_ 10y ago
    That would be a possibility. However the costs for those which are currently being built seem to skyrocket far beyond what renewable energies would cost - and that does not yet include the unsolved waste problem.

German 'environmentalists' (I use that word ironically) are indeed something else. They did this after Fukushima. Are they afraid there'll be a baltic sea tsunami?

detaro 10y ago

To be fair, it wasn't the environmentalists who suddenly got the urge to do this after Fukushima: the anti-nuclear movement had been talking about that for decades, and surely not for fears of "baltic sea tsunamis". Fukushima was when the then-current government suddenly found it opportune to quickly reverse their reversal of the plan to slowly phase out nuclear power. And how to deal with energy mix problems is a topic with widely varying opinions among people you might classify as environmentalists.

johansch 10y ago
Are you saying the german anti-nuclear people are largely distinct from the german 'environmentalists'?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- detaro 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that. My comment primarily points out that framing it as something that "environmentalists did on a whim after Fukushima, because Tsunamis oh so funny" is gross misrepresentation. Also that "environmentalist" is a very broad label. It's not like being anti-nuclear is a niche sentiment. A large percentage of the general population is "anti-nuclear" in that they support existing plans (=laws) to phase out nuclear power. E.g. in 2010, before Fukushima, ~50 % didn't want delays to the plans, and only 25 % supported large delays to it. The government added delays. Fukushima happened, and within days they changed their opinion back and reaffirmed the old plans (more or less). If you look at people more actively supporting the movement, sometimes being part of it since decades ago, when it was a niche opinion, I'd say in many cases they are less motivated by protecting the environment in general than they are by protecting humans, or protesting bad policies. But there is of course a big overlap with environmentalists.
  - sirtaj 10y ago
    I remember discussing this with a German acquaintance in the early 90s. Extremely anti-nuclear because of Chernobyl and the food contamination scares in its aftermath, and it didn't seem like a niche view at the time. Presumably that legacy lives on.

_ph_ 10y ago

No German power plant is in danger of a tsunami indeed. But what was worrisome about the Fukushima disaster was, that the tsunami was the trigger, but the nuclear disaster was mostly created by human failure. The reactor was too old, and failed purely because the lack of electrical power and the disability to deal with it. So, how many possible failure modes we have not considered also? Not to mention, that we don't have a good plan about what to do with the nuclear waste. Another component is, that the nuclear plants are only operating part-time as more and more maintenance is required, France just faced severe power shortage, as too many of their aging nuclear plants where down due to maintenance. I certainly would be happy, if we used less coal. And currently, quite a few coal plants in Germany are running rather for the profits of the operators than for the grids requirements. As the renewable energies grow, very soon quite a few coal plants are going to be decommissioned and replaced with on-demand gas power.

nickik 10y ago
Seems to solution is to replace reactors with newer better saver ones.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  That would be a possibility. However the costs for those which are currently being built seem to skyrocket far beyond what renewable energies would cost - and that does not yet include the unsolved waste problem.