5 ms·

What were the good reasons? Is Germany at risk of tsunamis or sub-Soviet-level engineering incompetence? Do they fear statistics, which point out that nuclear

What were the good reasons? Is Germany at risk of tsunamis or sub-Soviet-level engineering incompetence? Do they fear statistics, which point out that nuclear is one of the safest forms of power per kilowatt, most comparable to wind and commercial (non-rooftop) solar?

quonn 7y ago
Nobody knows where to put the waste, failures are catastrophic if rare and they have turned out not to be that rare if enough plants are deployed. As I said, it was a long discussion. Nobody wants to reopen it and I‘ll leave it at that.
- sjwright 7y ago
  As opposed to coal, oil, gas etc where we know where to put the waste—into our atmosphere. That's great. Let's shut down the nuclear and keep the coal going until renewables step up. But for a few paranoid NIMBY protesters, everyone knows where to put nuclear waste—send it to breeder reactors. Also, catastrophic nuclear failures are not deadly. Radiation from Fukushima has killed 1 person. And despite being the most absurd scenario possible to contemplate, radiation from Chernobyl killed between 30-100 people. In 2011, there were 163 wind turbine accidents in England that killed 14 people. Wind kills more people than nuclear, and nuclear makes orders of magnitude more electricity.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    You are joking if the radiation hasn't affected generations in those places.
lispm 7y ago
Well, Germany invested a zillion into a pebble-based thorium high-temperature reactor. Technological marvel. It didn't work reliable enough and was too costly. Closed down by the industry relatively silently... There is a site for nuclear waste. It does not work as expected. It needs to be cleaned for a few zillions... Nuclear is dead in Germany. Nobody wants it, it's too costly, it lacks critical solutions (like fuel reprocessing and nuclear waste storage), which also nobody wants to host.

quonn 7y ago

Nobody knows where to put the waste, failures are catastrophic if rare and they have turned out not to be that rare if enough plants are deployed. As I said, it was a long discussion. Nobody wants to reopen it and I‘ll leave it at that.

sjwright 7y ago
As opposed to coal, oil, gas etc where we know where to put the waste—into our atmosphere. That's great. Let's shut down the nuclear and keep the coal going until renewables step up. But for a few paranoid NIMBY protesters, everyone knows where to put nuclear waste—send it to breeder reactors. Also, catastrophic nuclear failures are not deadly. Radiation from Fukushima has killed 1 person. And despite being the most absurd scenario possible to contemplate, radiation from Chernobyl killed between 30-100 people. In 2011, there were 163 wind turbine accidents in England that killed 14 people. Wind kills more people than nuclear, and nuclear makes orders of magnitude more electricity.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  You are joking if the radiation hasn't affected generations in those places.

lispm 7y ago

Well, Germany invested a zillion into a pebble-based thorium high-temperature reactor. Technological marvel. It didn't work reliable enough and was too costly. Closed down by the industry relatively silently... There is a site for nuclear waste. It does not work as expected. It needs to be cleaned for a few zillions... Nuclear is dead in Germany. Nobody wants it, it's too costly, it lacks critical solutions (like fuel reprocessing and nuclear waste storage), which also nobody wants to host.