5 ms·

> was near coal mine In Europe, coal typically kills more than 20,000 people _every year_: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-po

by xroche 5y ago

> was near coal mine In Europe, coal typically kills more than 20,000 people _every year_: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european... [ And yet Germany and Belgium decided to end nuclear energy because people are afraid of the "risks", but keep coal plants. ]

hkt 5y ago
Germany and Belgium have cultural hangups about nuclear that relate to the fact most Germans (and probably also Belgians) felt they'd be the first to die if there was a nuclear war. Not that this excuses them from being reasonable, of course, but it is worth keeping in mind just how occupied by the threat of nuclear annihilation many people in those countries were, and for how long.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  I’m a fan of nuclear, and I suspect you’re right. The reasons people say they oppose even existing nuclear (cost, waste, safety) don’t usually pass scrutiny. I suspect it is primarily due to their association with nuclear weapons. It instills a pretty deep fear, which I don’t entirely blame them for. ...however it has pretty terrible health, environmental, and economic consequences to prioritize nuclear phase out over fossil fuels (especially coal).
  - hanniabu 5y ago
    The reason I'm against nuclear power is the human greed factor. See my past comment for more details and sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520
    - da_big_ghey 5y ago
      we are having way to ensure beter compliance. may be we need for to make nuclear executive responsible with jail time if requirements broken. certainly nuclear safety has more importance than sox compliance.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      I find none of this convincing. Industrial accidents happen with all thermal power plant types. And coal ash disposal has a worse track record than nuclear waste. (Coal ash being naturally radioactive!) And the aerosols produced from coal transport and burning are a continual problem of lung cancer. Nuclear is remarkably well-regulated by comparison. I understand why people may want to get rid of it eventually, but compared to coal, it's sunshine and rainbows.
  - valenterry 5y ago
    Until the ones who gain profit from nuclear power would also pay for an insurance that covers for the worst possible accident, I think you will have a hard time to argue for nuclear energy.
bildung 5y ago
At least for Germany this isn't true, both nuclear and coal are phased out with about the same end date.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Why would you not prioritize ending coal first??
  - bildung 5y ago
    Because Fukushima provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for politicians to go against the local energy giants without them being able to gain the upper hand in the inevitable fight about the narrative in the local media. This is all power politics.
- 00jimbo 5y ago
  it doesn't work quite like that, though; while nuclear is down to ~13%, a quarter of the german energy sector is still burning coal. in fact, the plan to shut down fossil fuels was hindered by (imo) the short-sighted view to curtail nuclear before it was necessary.
  - bildung 5y ago
    Coal is down from 45% in 2013 to 23% in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany During the same time, nuclear is down from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&year=2020&interval=year https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&... Still too little too late in my opinion, but one has a hard time arguing that nuclear plays a role here at all.
    - 00jimbo 5y ago
      the point i was making was less that this speedup of nuclear draw down was problematic so much as the whole viewpoint that ending advancement of nuclear power as a whole. germany limiting the lifespan and new construction of nuclear power dates back to the early 2000s, fukushima just reset the timelines back to the original 2022 closing dates.
CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
We're not keeping coal in Belgium. The last coal mine in Belgium closed in 1992, the last coal power plant closed in 2016.
- wazoox 5y ago
  Yup, actually the Belgian government plans to close all nuclear plants real soon now, and replace them all with imported gas. This is beyond stupid on so many levels.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    Would that be Russian gas they can then use as a bargaining chip?
    - wazoox 5y ago
      Who knows. They plan to shut them off so quickly it may not even be possible to build the necessary gas plants (of course they promised to replace them "mostly" with solar and wind, which is a complete joke and would require at least a decade of building at full speed, not a mere couple of years).
CaptArmchair 5y ago
> Belgium Belgium doesn't have coal plants. Belgium's nuclear plants are/were scheduled to close because they've surpassed their initial lifespan. An extension was added but that has almost been surpassed as well. These are plants which have been in operation for 40-50 years. Replacements aren't being build because they are "unsafe". They aren't being build because it's economically not viable to do so in a country like Belgium. Not at this moment in time, not in the past 20 to 30 years. Belgium's major energy operators are also largely controlled by French energy conglomerates such as ENGIE.

by xroche 5y ago

hkt 5y ago

Germany and Belgium have cultural hangups about nuclear that relate to the fact most Germans (and probably also Belgians) felt they'd be the first to die if there was a nuclear war. Not that this excuses them from being reasonable, of course, but it is worth keeping in mind just how occupied by the threat of nuclear annihilation many people in those countries were, and for how long.

Robotbeat 5y ago
I’m a fan of nuclear, and I suspect you’re right. The reasons people say they oppose even existing nuclear (cost, waste, safety) don’t usually pass scrutiny. I suspect it is primarily due to their association with nuclear weapons. It instills a pretty deep fear, which I don’t entirely blame them for. ...however it has pretty terrible health, environmental, and economic consequences to prioritize nuclear phase out over fossil fuels (especially coal).
- hanniabu 5y ago
  The reason I'm against nuclear power is the human greed factor. See my past comment for more details and sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520
  - da_big_ghey 5y ago
    we are having way to ensure beter compliance. may be we need for to make nuclear executive responsible with jail time if requirements broken. certainly nuclear safety has more importance than sox compliance.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    I find none of this convincing. Industrial accidents happen with all thermal power plant types. And coal ash disposal has a worse track record than nuclear waste. (Coal ash being naturally radioactive!) And the aerosols produced from coal transport and burning are a continual problem of lung cancer. Nuclear is remarkably well-regulated by comparison. I understand why people may want to get rid of it eventually, but compared to coal, it's sunshine and rainbows.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Until the ones who gain profit from nuclear power would also pay for an insurance that covers for the worst possible accident, I think you will have a hard time to argue for nuclear energy.

bildung 5y ago

At least for Germany this isn't true, both nuclear and coal are phased out with about the same end date.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Why would you not prioritize ending coal first??
- bildung 5y ago
  Because Fukushima provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for politicians to go against the local energy giants without them being able to gain the upper hand in the inevitable fight about the narrative in the local media. This is all power politics.
00jimbo 5y ago
it doesn't work quite like that, though; while nuclear is down to ~13%, a quarter of the german energy sector is still burning coal. in fact, the plan to shut down fossil fuels was hindered by (imo) the short-sighted view to curtail nuclear before it was necessary.
- bildung 5y ago
  Coal is down from 45% in 2013 to 23% in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany During the same time, nuclear is down from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&year=2020&interval=year https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&... Still too little too late in my opinion, but one has a hard time arguing that nuclear plays a role here at all.
  - 00jimbo 5y ago
    the point i was making was less that this speedup of nuclear draw down was problematic so much as the whole viewpoint that ending advancement of nuclear power as a whole. germany limiting the lifespan and new construction of nuclear power dates back to the early 2000s, fukushima just reset the timelines back to the original 2022 closing dates.

CorrectHorseBat 5y ago

We're not keeping coal in Belgium. The last coal mine in Belgium closed in 1992, the last coal power plant closed in 2016.

wazoox 5y ago
Yup, actually the Belgian government plans to close all nuclear plants real soon now, and replace them all with imported gas. This is beyond stupid on so many levels.
- foobarian 5y ago
  Would that be Russian gas they can then use as a bargaining chip?
  - wazoox 5y ago
    Who knows. They plan to shut them off so quickly it may not even be possible to build the necessary gas plants (of course they promised to replace them "mostly" with solar and wind, which is a complete joke and would require at least a decade of building at full speed, not a mere couple of years).

CaptArmchair 5y ago

> Belgium Belgium doesn't have coal plants. Belgium's nuclear plants are/were scheduled to close because they've surpassed their initial lifespan. An extension was added but that has almost been surpassed as well. These are plants which have been in operation for 40-50 years. Replacements aren't being build because they are "unsafe". They aren't being build because it's economically not viable to do so in a country like Belgium. Not at this moment in time, not in the past 20 to 30 years. Belgium's major energy operators are also largely controlled by French energy conglomerates such as ENGIE.