3 ms·
But before Fukushima, it was mostly an empty statement of intent. The nuclear industry was already winding down, but not really because they were taking the dec
by usrusr 7y ago
But before Fukushima, it was mostly an empty statement of intent. The nuclear industry was already winding down, but not really because they were taking the decision for granted, they were just assessing the tiny (at the time) risk of it not being reverted as too much for them.
Fukushima changed the perception of exit plans from "yeah, right, I'll believe it when I see it" to "yeah, definitely". Fukushima hit hard because before that, Chernobyl was quite successfully framed as a failure not of nuclear technology but of Sovietism. But Fukushima happened, of all countries, in Japan, famed for accuracy and reliability (they can even run trains on a schedule!) and full of respect for the limited land-mass they have (compare Shintoism to American "exploit and move on"). If they can't handle it, nobody can. A lot of people were reevaluating their perception of Chernobyl and so their personal "disasters in my lifetime because nuclear is hard" counter did in effect not double from one to two, it, jumped to two straight from zero. Opinion shifted from almost a tie to almost unanimous.
- AstralStorm 7y agoBy ”can't handle” people mean an incident similar in scope to a mine collapse or coal plant fire. The fires of Saudi oil fields were more toxic than that. People do not understand the kind and level of risk posed by radiation at all - Fukushima was cleanly contained, despite multiple safety systems failing. (Compared to TMI or Chernobyl especially.) The evacuation caused more harm than the incident, as does the sigmatization of the people <not really) affected by it. And it got hit by a tsunami, not a risk in Germany. This is how overblown the whole affair is. Yes, wind and solar are safer. So is geothermal. But nuclear is still safer than hydroelectric, gas, oil or coal.