15 ms·

Why Germans remain so jittery about nuclear power

45 points by WithinReason 5y ago

nickcw 5y ago
Archive link: https://archive.fo/PAGLk https://archive.fo/PAGLk
stefan_ 5y ago
What's the obsession of the Economist with nuclear power? At this point it's legacy technology; no one is building a nuclear plant with a 50 year lifecycle for many many billions if you have to expect that it is going to be entirely supplanted by regenerative power within half of that. To produce power at a price point that is already not viable today.
pingsl 5y ago
What is the alternative to nuclear power for Germans? People want to control carbon emissions, people want clean power, people want cheap power, people don't want to take any potential (small) risk. That is really hard.
formerly_proven 5y ago
(Article does not attempt to answer the question posed in the headline)
- martin_a 5y ago
  Indeed. What a shitty article.
s_dev 5y ago
This is something many people in the EU simply don't get -- I don't get it. Germans have a basically a positive stereotype of being a scientific nation and all around clever lads -- this has enormous soft power and gives leverage to things like "Made in Germany" as a brand. This anti-nuclear stance in Germany is absolutely caustic to that projected image. It's absolutely insane they want to shut down Nuclear and replace it with fossil fueled plants. I love Germans and Germany but they're simply in the wrong on this and I don't know what the right way forward is.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  In my mind, a nuclear power plant staffed with German engineers is the least likely to have a nuclear accident.
  - croes 5y ago
    The same was thought about japanese nuclear power plants
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      Except they built them in a place that's pretty known for earthquakes. An earthquake in Germany sounds like science fiction.
      - arethuza 5y ago
        There have been fairly large (VEI 6) volcanic eruptions in Germany fairly recently (at least by geological standards): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See
        selfhoster11 5y ago
        While I had no idea that Germany was volcanically active (thanks for the link!), this doesn't seem to be an ongoing thing.
        arethuza 5y ago
        Well, the area is categorised as volcanically active - I doubt if it is a very serious risk. Mind you - nobody thought we got tsunamis in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide Just to make clear: I'm completely comfortable with nuclear power and I live reasonably close to the remaining operational nuclear power station in Scotland: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/rants/nothing-like-this-will-be-buil.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/rants/nothing-l...
emptyfile 5y ago
I can understand the logic that both natural gas and nuclear aren't green. I think its flawed but I understand it. However, if the new German government decides that nuclear is not green, but natural gas is green, then we have to seriously consider that vested natural gas interests are buried deep in German politics and have been for decades. The idea is completely perverse.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  there is no such thing as green energy anyway. solar panels need dirty solar cells manufacturing to work. wind power need turbines which means metallurgy which means fossil fuels to make them.
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    meh. green != free lunch
  - lopis 5y ago
    What the point in being this pedantic? Green energy is energy that has a significantly lower negative impact on the environment. In 50-100 years maybe wind and solar won't be considered green anymore, but at this moment they are. There's no activity without an impact on the environment.
  - emptyfile 5y ago
    I agree, that is why I think the logic is flawed. Either green just means no CO2 or nothing is green. Go ask the citizens of Serbia what they think of the new Rio Tinto lithium mine opening in their country, which is touted as helping the European green revolution and all these giga factories that are being built. Easy to have green energy in the EU when the pollution of building batteries is in Serbia or China.
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    "Green" doesn't mean completely pollution free. It means that the net product is positive: we get more energy out of it than we would just by burning the fuels used to make them.
haunter 5y ago
The Wikipedia article gives more answers than this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germa...
- dandanua 5y ago
  It doesn't mention that Schröder became a close friend of Putin, runs Russian energy companies and is most likely a multi-billionaire.
- tokai 5y ago
  I remember the blockades of transports of nuclear waste. One of the arguments was that it was dangerous to transport said material. But I never understood how complicating the transport helped anything.
  - BetterGeiger 5y ago
    Here we are, talking about the waste, even though the waste is pretty easy to deal with. That's what it accomplished.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eckesicle 5y ago
In my opinion Europe's decommissioning of nuclear plants, particularly in Germany, is the greatest geopolitical blunder in recent history. The EU is now completely dependent on Russian goodwill to power their infrastructure for the next few decades, and have given up all leverage they had to push back on Russian power plays. At the very least they should've kept the plants operational and operating at minimum capacity for redundancy to mitigate this factor. We have no idea what the political landscape will look like thirty years from now, and Russia hasn't exactly been a stable or kind neighbour in modern history. https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/01/europe-must-reduce-its-dependence-on-russian-gas-view https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/01/europe-must-reduce-its-d...
- fock 5y ago
  Could you tell me, where we get our oil from? And how we heat our homes with nuclear? We never had any leverage except for the mighty dollar (and nukes and the fact that socialism doesn't need to kill before) and the US is working steady on removing that lever.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    > And how we heat our homes with nuclear? Resistors and/or heat pumps.
  - Mystlix 5y ago
    Why do you need oil if you have electicity for dirt cheap? Expand the power lines and push for electic motors everywhere. Also I'm pretty sure running current through a big transistor dissipates plenty of heat, I mean, you know about electric stoves right?
    - fock 5y ago
      nuclear is far from dirt-cheap. And we don't currently do it in Germany (France does and its grid nearly goes down every other winter). So, where will we get all this fresh uranium from (and the reactors to stick it into)?
daniel-cussen 5y ago
I blame the Simpsons. Nonstop slander against nuclear science in every single episode, for almost thirty years. Literally every single episode, it's in the opening sequence. How can you watch the Simpsons, if you think they're funny, and you trust them, and not think nuclear science is shit?
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  I feel like the simpsons make nuclear look great. You have homer, the lovable idiot, who is a Nuclear safety inspector for the plant, and, even though he is completely underqualified for the job, the plant still has never had a meltdown.
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    Yeah it did, he impedes it by blocking the pipe with his ass I think, and Mr. Burns congratulates him on turning a "[potential] Chernobyl into a media Three-Mile Island." Then there's all the three-eyed fish, Mr. Burns irradiated into looking like an alien, all sorts of stupid gags. Maybe some of them were funny.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > and you trust them Who's trusting the Simpsons? The whole joke is they're dysfunctional.
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    No not the characters themselves, the point of view. Like if they show you an opening sequence where the first thing you see is Bart Simpson spelling out by rote a line that is funny and does change episode to episode, then Homer Simpson fumbling a stereotypical regulus, like is it supposed to be radium, which does glow green, or more likely uranium, which is what powers a nuclear plant? It doesn't matter. You trust that someone who just told a funny joke will tell another funny joke, so you laugh without thinking it over. Humor sandwich.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
>An mp from the Social Democratic Party (spd), which leads the governing coalition, compared nuclear supporters (ludicrously) to anti-vaxxers. Edit: Oops, misread it.
- samastur 5y ago
  You read it wrong. It's the nuclear SUPPORTERS that are compared to anti-vaxxers, not opponents.
  - hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
    Indeed I did. How embarrassing.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > compared nuclear supporters (ludicrously) to anti-vaxxers > Both refuse to accept the views of scientists. Are a lot of mainstream scientists against nuclear?
- dagothur 5y ago
  I think you are confused? The quote is about nuclear supporters being ludicrously compared to anti-vaxxers. And from your comment it seems that you agree that nuclear power is safe.
  - hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
    Yes, I misread it. My bad.
locallost 5y ago
I'm used to seeing a lot of misinformation related to Germany and nuclear power, so here are some facts in advance: 1) coal use went way down since they decided to switch off the nuclear plants. people assume it was replaced by coal, but this is false 2) emissions are down 3) phase out of coal was started last year and is on schedule to last until 2038 4) renewable use is way way up 5) they are one of the largest exporters of electricity in Europe There is no doubt that the next decade represents uncharted territory, but thus far they really moved the needle. Can it be done this way is a reasonable question, as are doubts. But an automatic dismissal is irrational in light of the evidence. Especially compared to e.g. the US which hasn't budged from 60% fossil fuels for electricity in the last decade.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > they are one of the largest exporters of electricity in Europe any source for that claim?
  - locallost 5y ago
    https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrage/stromimportsaldo-von-deutschland-seit-1990/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      What do these negative values mean?
      - locallost 5y ago
        That they exported more than they imported. All countries (or I guess at least) both import and export electricity depending on their needs. In the end the total says if you imported more or exported more.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > 1) coal use went way down since they decided to switch off the nuclear plants. people assume it was replaced by coal, but this is false How is this relevant? There is still a lot of coal used and it could be much less if the nuclear was in use. > 3) phase out of coal was started last year and is on schedule to last until 2038 It's definitely too late for the climate.
addicted 5y ago
“Why areGermans so jittery about an extremely expensive source of power, that continuously gets more expensive with time, that has long term effects the likes of which another strong engineering country is still dealing with 10 years after their disaster, that even if it does solve their immediate power solutions will never be a global solution because Germany along with the handful of existing nuclear nations will, by treaty, severely punish any other country that tried to become nuclear”. So, to rephrase, why are Germans jittery about a terribly expensive solution that they and a few handful of other countries won’t even allow to be a solution for the vast majority of the world where most people actually live and which can at the drop of a hat blow up the entire planet. I’m entirely convinced that if the US didn’t subsidize so many people’s nuclear engineering education we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because it’s almost entirely self serving nuclear engineers who keep demanding that we invest in the most expensive source of renewable energy instead of the myriad of cheaper options.
- medstrom 5y ago
  Blow up the planet? This was never a possibility.
  - drran 5y ago
    Continent-wide Red Forest can be achieved with just one nuclear plant.
DataDaoDe 5y ago
Here's some information about nuclear in terms of safety and environmental cleanliness in the context of other common energy sources (https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy). From what I can tell from this data as well as other sources I've seen in the past, it seems to be by far the most environmentally friendly as well as the safest form of reliable i.e. non-intermittent energy.
- drran 5y ago
  Coincidentally, one of the safest sources of energy also produced the most dangerous and long-lasting problems, for which the only solution so far is to run away and leave the land empty. Luckily, we still have plenty of land to move in. For example, if something serious will blow up in Europe (non-zero probability), we all can immigrate to the USA.
fabian2k 5y ago
There's plenty of irrational fears about nuclear power, but there are also valid significant doubts about it. And this isn't really that much about the technology, but especially about everything around it. We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste, and all the plans decades in making have been thrown overboard entirely a few years ago. This is more of a political failure, but if we can't manage to fix this part in decades maybe we shouldn't produce even more nuclear waste we have no place to put. How economical is it, if you include the costs of removing the irradiated plant in the end. It's kinda impossible to get unbiased numbers here as everyone has an agenda, but you can't just ignore that part of the costs and put it on the public. The safety is a combination of the technology and the people and processes running the entire thing. I personally the technology is probably something we could figure out well enough, but I don't have that much trust in the softer parts here for a technology where you have a very small risk for a very large amount of damage.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
- theshrike79 5y ago
  > We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste Maybe you haven't but we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  I am going to call bullshit on the nuclear waste storage problem. Nuclear waste is incredibly dense, and we could simply dump low level solid nuclear waste in the ocean (gasp!) High radioactive waste is incredibly dense.
  - drran 5y ago
    Nuclear waste is dumped into the ocean already, contaminating fish: Fukushima, La Hague, nuclear bomb testing, etc. etc. We need a second ocean. https://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-how-the-ocean-became-a-dumping-ground-for-radioactive-waste/a-52710277 https://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-how-the-ocean-became-a-dumpi...
discopicante 5y ago
I see this as a combination of Germans valuing risk aversion more than progress on just about any topic, including reducing carbon emissions combined with an extreme NIMBY / not-invented-here mindset. The Greens will tell you they can run the country on renewables but will then sacrifice energy independence when the can't make up the difference between supply and demand. This is why Germany has the most expensive energy costs in Europe. This is why Germany can do exactly nothing to keep Russian interference in-check. And it is also why they continue to prop up coal-produced energy production while still thinking they can lecture other countries on how to achieve sustainable and renewable energy independence. The stereotype of Germans being driven by science is simply not true (anymore). It has been replaced by complacency and the inability to be optimistic about the future.
grandchild 5y ago
german here. i’ve been to some anti-nuclear protests in my time, and i still think it’s dangerous technology. i still think it should not be termed “sustainable”, mainly because of the unsolved waste question, but also in a small part because of the large possible damage from, admittedly unlikely, accidents. however, i do recognize the dilemma of having to go emission-neutral, like, you know, yesterday, and not having the technology to power everything from truly renewable sources right now. from what i hear it would be possible for germany to do without nuclear (unlike, e.g. france, who are highly dependent on it), with feasible effort. a problem with nuclear power plants is the timescales involved for building, running to break-even and deconstructing such a plant. almost all other power sources have less “inertia” — you can put them up and tear them down and clean them up much quicker. that’s my main worry, that continuing with (and re-investing in) nuclear will carry us on a trajectory that makes us stay with it out of laziness and investment/revenue interests longer than strictly necessary. i also do realize that my opinions are also a product of the culture that i come from, and that i might be rationalizing, but i am confident that people do underestimate the nuclear waste issues because of the timescales involved.
- tjansen 5y ago
  > unsolved waste question Why is it unsolved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...
marmarama 5y ago
Nuclear energy is expensive and unnecessary. A mix of renewables, coupled with battery and hydrogen-from-seawater energy storage technologies, will be cheaper, less capital-intensive, easier to maintain, and far easier to sell politically. It also has no nuclear proliferation concerns. There was concern that battery and hydrogen storage technologies would not be sufficient, or would not work practically, but as pilot projects are coming online, it's becoming clear that the engineering challenges involved are fairly straightforward. Fission power has its uses - the energy density is unrivalled, so will continue to have military and spaceflight applications - but its moment as a major component of the energy mix is coming to a close. Current new reactor builds in some western countries - Hinkley Point C in the UK, for example - are insurance policies that may well never end up on the grid, or may eventually operate as the only reactor in that country's energy mix. The complete lack of urgency with these new builds demonstrates the 'wait-and-see' approach.
- tjansen 5y ago
  > A mix of renewables, coupled with battery and hydrogen-from-seawater energy storage technologies, will be cheaper, less capital-intensive, easier to maintain, and far easier to sell politically. What will make it cheaper than nuclear power? Right now, it's more expensive than French nuclear power. And Germany doesn't even have storage technologies and has mostly concentrated on the low-hanging fruits. Off-shore wind and tiny solar installations on every residential root will be far more expensive that what has been done so far.
  - marmarama 5y ago
    Siemens is currently building a pilot offshore wind-to-hydrogen plant, with an estimated in-service date of 2024. They're not the first to get a plant into service, but that's a lot quicker than a new nuclear plant. Is Siemens German enough? There are several other European energy and engineering companies also racing to do it, Shell and Total for example, and quite a few in the US and China. Offshore wind is currently modelled as more expensive per kWh over its lifetime (LCOE) than nuclear, but solar PVs and onshore wind are considerably cheaper. All three (especially PVs!) are reducing in price over time, whereas nuclear is becoming more expensive, primarily due to changes in safety requirements post-Fukushima. Importing nuclear power from France is especially cheap because the French reactors are already paid off - what Germany is paying is the marginal costs of generation, plus profit margin. New nuclear capacity is far (5-10 times!) more expensive, because nuclear requires such huge capital investments. France's reactors are beginning to come to the end of their lifespan, and as they are shut down, excess capacity will decrease and the price of importing French nuclear energy will increase substantially. France, like everywhere else in the western world, doesn't seem all that keen on replacing the reactors, and even if they do, energy from new reactors would need to be priced to pay off the capital costs.
chromanoid 5y ago
Germans fear nuclear power because of actual events. All people in their 30s have parents that were confronted with a situation similar to what we have now during the pandemic. They had to keep their children indoors and fear for their health. There were regular reports on radiation in the news, playgrounds were closed etc. "No milk, no mushrooms, no playing outside" https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/closed-off-playground-in-berlin-germany-after-the-nachrichtenfoto/542350527 https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/closed-off...
einpoklum 5y ago
s/Germans/people everywhere/. > A disaster, say critics. Not a disaster, say others. > Nuclear power entails hardly any carbon emissions and offers consistent baseload supply, unlike intermittent renewables. The opposition to nuclear power generation was not based on carbon emissions, so this is a Red Herring. > bureaucracy and bottlenecks are slowing the rollout of renewables So, that seems to be the main problem. The German government knew it was facing the deadline but neglected to prepare for it.
CPLNTN 5y ago
As a European the main problem that i see, is that even if we assume Natural Gas and Nuclear are both equally bad, relying on natural gas make the EU reliant on russian gas furniture. And this in turns means that we can never take a hard stance against Russia, or else the pipelines will receive less, something that is already happened this year and that made electricity cost skyrocket in countries heavily reliant on energy import, like Italy.
incomplete 5y ago
paywall-free: https://archive.is/PAGLk https://archive.is/PAGLk

45 points by WithinReason 5y ago

Archive link: https://archive.fo/PAGLk https://archive.fo/PAGLk

What's the obsession of the Economist with nuclear power? At this point it's legacy technology; no one is building a nuclear plant with a 50 year lifecycle for many many billions if you have to expect that it is going to be entirely supplanted by regenerative power within half of that. To produce power at a price point that is already not viable today.

pingsl 5y ago

What is the alternative to nuclear power for Germans? People want to control carbon emissions, people want clean power, people want cheap power, people don't want to take any potential (small) risk. That is really hard.

formerly_proven 5y ago

(Article does not attempt to answer the question posed in the headline)

martin_a 5y ago
Indeed. What a shitty article.

s_dev 5y ago

This is something many people in the EU simply don't get -- I don't get it. Germans have a basically a positive stereotype of being a scientific nation and all around clever lads -- this has enormous soft power and gives leverage to things like "Made in Germany" as a brand. This anti-nuclear stance in Germany is absolutely caustic to that projected image. It's absolutely insane they want to shut down Nuclear and replace it with fossil fueled plants. I love Germans and Germany but they're simply in the wrong on this and I don't know what the right way forward is.

WithinReason 5y ago
In my mind, a nuclear power plant staffed with German engineers is the least likely to have a nuclear accident.
- croes 5y ago
  The same was thought about japanese nuclear power plants
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    Except they built them in a place that's pretty known for earthquakes. An earthquake in Germany sounds like science fiction.
    - arethuza 5y ago
      There have been fairly large (VEI 6) volcanic eruptions in Germany fairly recently (at least by geological standards): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        While I had no idea that Germany was volcanically active (thanks for the link!), this doesn't seem to be an ongoing thing.
        arethuza 5y ago
        Well, the area is categorised as volcanically active - I doubt if it is a very serious risk. Mind you - nobody thought we got tsunamis in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide Just to make clear: I'm completely comfortable with nuclear power and I live reasonably close to the remaining operational nuclear power station in Scotland: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/rants/nothing-like-this-will-be-buil.html https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/rants/nothing-l...

emptyfile 5y ago

I can understand the logic that both natural gas and nuclear aren't green. I think its flawed but I understand it. However, if the new German government decides that nuclear is not green, but natural gas is green, then we have to seriously consider that vested natural gas interests are buried deep in German politics and have been for decades. The idea is completely perverse.

ekianjo 5y ago
there is no such thing as green energy anyway. solar panels need dirty solar cells manufacturing to work. wind power need turbines which means metallurgy which means fossil fuels to make them.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  meh. green != free lunch
- lopis 5y ago
  What the point in being this pedantic? Green energy is energy that has a significantly lower negative impact on the environment. In 50-100 years maybe wind and solar won't be considered green anymore, but at this moment they are. There's no activity without an impact on the environment.
- emptyfile 5y ago
  I agree, that is why I think the logic is flawed. Either green just means no CO2 or nothing is green. Go ask the citizens of Serbia what they think of the new Rio Tinto lithium mine opening in their country, which is touted as helping the European green revolution and all these giga factories that are being built. Easy to have green energy in the EU when the pollution of building batteries is in Serbia or China.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  "Green" doesn't mean completely pollution free. It means that the net product is positive: we get more energy out of it than we would just by burning the fuels used to make them.

haunter 5y ago

The Wikipedia article gives more answers than this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germa...

dandanua 5y ago
It doesn't mention that Schröder became a close friend of Putin, runs Russian energy companies and is most likely a multi-billionaire.
tokai 5y ago
I remember the blockades of transports of nuclear waste. One of the arguments was that it was dangerous to transport said material. But I never understood how complicating the transport helped anything.
- BetterGeiger 5y ago
  Here we are, talking about the waste, even though the waste is pretty easy to deal with. That's what it accomplished.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

eckesicle 5y ago

In my opinion Europe's decommissioning of nuclear plants, particularly in Germany, is the greatest geopolitical blunder in recent history. The EU is now completely dependent on Russian goodwill to power their infrastructure for the next few decades, and have given up all leverage they had to push back on Russian power plays. At the very least they should've kept the plants operational and operating at minimum capacity for redundancy to mitigate this factor. We have no idea what the political landscape will look like thirty years from now, and Russia hasn't exactly been a stable or kind neighbour in modern history. https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/01/europe-must-reduce-its-dependence-on-russian-gas-view https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/01/europe-must-reduce-its-d...

fock 5y ago
Could you tell me, where we get our oil from? And how we heat our homes with nuclear? We never had any leverage except for the mighty dollar (and nukes and the fact that socialism doesn't need to kill before) and the US is working steady on removing that lever.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  > And how we heat our homes with nuclear? Resistors and/or heat pumps.
- Mystlix 5y ago
  Why do you need oil if you have electicity for dirt cheap? Expand the power lines and push for electic motors everywhere. Also I'm pretty sure running current through a big transistor dissipates plenty of heat, I mean, you know about electric stoves right?
  - fock 5y ago
    nuclear is far from dirt-cheap. And we don't currently do it in Germany (France does and its grid nearly goes down every other winter). So, where will we get all this fresh uranium from (and the reactors to stick it into)?

daniel-cussen 5y ago

I blame the Simpsons. Nonstop slander against nuclear science in every single episode, for almost thirty years. Literally every single episode, it's in the opening sequence. How can you watch the Simpsons, if you think they're funny, and you trust them, and not think nuclear science is shit?

xboxnolifes 5y ago
I feel like the simpsons make nuclear look great. You have homer, the lovable idiot, who is a Nuclear safety inspector for the plant, and, even though he is completely underqualified for the job, the plant still has never had a meltdown.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  Yeah it did, he impedes it by blocking the pipe with his ass I think, and Mr. Burns congratulates him on turning a "[potential] Chernobyl into a media Three-Mile Island." Then there's all the three-eyed fish, Mr. Burns irradiated into looking like an alien, all sorts of stupid gags. Maybe some of them were funny.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> and you trust them Who's trusting the Simpsons? The whole joke is they're dysfunctional.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  No not the characters themselves, the point of view. Like if they show you an opening sequence where the first thing you see is Bart Simpson spelling out by rote a line that is funny and does change episode to episode, then Homer Simpson fumbling a stereotypical regulus, like is it supposed to be radium, which does glow green, or more likely uranium, which is what powers a nuclear plant? It doesn't matter. You trust that someone who just told a funny joke will tell another funny joke, so you laugh without thinking it over. Humor sandwich.
DocTomoe 5y ago

hn_throwaway_69 5y ago

>An mp from the Social Democratic Party (spd), which leads the governing coalition, compared nuclear supporters (ludicrously) to anti-vaxxers. Edit: Oops, misread it.

samastur 5y ago
You read it wrong. It's the nuclear SUPPORTERS that are compared to anti-vaxxers, not opponents.
- hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
  Indeed I did. How embarrassing.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> compared nuclear supporters (ludicrously) to anti-vaxxers > Both refuse to accept the views of scientists. Are a lot of mainstream scientists against nuclear?
dagothur 5y ago
I think you are confused? The quote is about nuclear supporters being ludicrously compared to anti-vaxxers. And from your comment it seems that you agree that nuclear power is safe.
- hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
  Yes, I misread it. My bad.

locallost 5y ago

I'm used to seeing a lot of misinformation related to Germany and nuclear power, so here are some facts in advance: 1) coal use went way down since they decided to switch off the nuclear plants. people assume it was replaced by coal, but this is false 2) emissions are down 3) phase out of coal was started last year and is on schedule to last until 2038 4) renewable use is way way up 5) they are one of the largest exporters of electricity in Europe There is no doubt that the next decade represents uncharted territory, but thus far they really moved the needle. Can it be done this way is a reasonable question, as are doubts. But an automatic dismissal is irrational in light of the evidence. Especially compared to e.g. the US which hasn't budged from 60% fossil fuels for electricity in the last decade.

ekianjo 5y ago
> they are one of the largest exporters of electricity in Europe any source for that claim?
- locallost 5y ago
  https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrage/stromimportsaldo-von-deutschland-seit-1990/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153533/umfrag...
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    What do these negative values mean?
    - locallost 5y ago
      That they exported more than they imported. All countries (or I guess at least) both import and export electricity depending on their needs. In the end the total says if you imported more or exported more.
fsflover 5y ago
> 1) coal use went way down since they decided to switch off the nuclear plants. people assume it was replaced by coal, but this is false How is this relevant? There is still a lot of coal used and it could be much less if the nuclear was in use. > 3) phase out of coal was started last year and is on schedule to last until 2038 It's definitely too late for the climate.

addicted 5y ago

“Why areGermans so jittery about an extremely expensive source of power, that continuously gets more expensive with time, that has long term effects the likes of which another strong engineering country is still dealing with 10 years after their disaster, that even if it does solve their immediate power solutions will never be a global solution because Germany along with the handful of existing nuclear nations will, by treaty, severely punish any other country that tried to become nuclear”. So, to rephrase, why are Germans jittery about a terribly expensive solution that they and a few handful of other countries won’t even allow to be a solution for the vast majority of the world where most people actually live and which can at the drop of a hat blow up the entire planet. I’m entirely convinced that if the US didn’t subsidize so many people’s nuclear engineering education we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because it’s almost entirely self serving nuclear engineers who keep demanding that we invest in the most expensive source of renewable energy instead of the myriad of cheaper options.

medstrom 5y ago
Blow up the planet? This was never a possibility.
- drran 5y ago
  Continent-wide Red Forest can be achieved with just one nuclear plant.

DataDaoDe 5y ago

Here's some information about nuclear in terms of safety and environmental cleanliness in the context of other common energy sources (https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy). From what I can tell from this data as well as other sources I've seen in the past, it seems to be by far the most environmentally friendly as well as the safest form of reliable i.e. non-intermittent energy.

drran 5y ago
Coincidentally, one of the safest sources of energy also produced the most dangerous and long-lasting problems, for which the only solution so far is to run away and leave the land empty. Luckily, we still have plenty of land to move in. For example, if something serious will blow up in Europe (non-zero probability), we all can immigrate to the USA.

fabian2k 5y ago

There's plenty of irrational fears about nuclear power, but there are also valid significant doubts about it. And this isn't really that much about the technology, but especially about everything around it. We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste, and all the plans decades in making have been thrown overboard entirely a few years ago. This is more of a political failure, but if we can't manage to fix this part in decades maybe we shouldn't produce even more nuclear waste we have no place to put. How economical is it, if you include the costs of removing the irradiated plant in the end. It's kinda impossible to get unbiased numbers here as everyone has an agenda, but you can't just ignore that part of the costs and put it on the public. The safety is a combination of the technology and the people and processes running the entire thing. I personally the technology is probably something we could figure out well enough, but I don't have that much trust in the softer parts here for a technology where you have a very small risk for a very large amount of damage.

fsflover 5y ago
> We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html
theshrike79 5y ago
> We haven't managed to decide on a place to store the nuclear waste Maybe you haven't but we have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
RealityVoid 5y ago
I am going to call bullshit on the nuclear waste storage problem. Nuclear waste is incredibly dense, and we could simply dump low level solid nuclear waste in the ocean (gasp!) High radioactive waste is incredibly dense.
- drran 5y ago
  Nuclear waste is dumped into the ocean already, contaminating fish: Fukushima, La Hague, nuclear bomb testing, etc. etc. We need a second ocean. https://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-how-the-ocean-became-a-dumping-ground-for-radioactive-waste/a-52710277 https://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-how-the-ocean-became-a-dumpi...

discopicante 5y ago

I see this as a combination of Germans valuing risk aversion more than progress on just about any topic, including reducing carbon emissions combined with an extreme NIMBY / not-invented-here mindset. The Greens will tell you they can run the country on renewables but will then sacrifice energy independence when the can't make up the difference between supply and demand. This is why Germany has the most expensive energy costs in Europe. This is why Germany can do exactly nothing to keep Russian interference in-check. And it is also why they continue to prop up coal-produced energy production while still thinking they can lecture other countries on how to achieve sustainable and renewable energy independence. The stereotype of Germans being driven by science is simply not true (anymore). It has been replaced by complacency and the inability to be optimistic about the future.

grandchild 5y ago

german here. i’ve been to some anti-nuclear protests in my time, and i still think it’s dangerous technology. i still think it should not be termed “sustainable”, mainly because of the unsolved waste question, but also in a small part because of the large possible damage from, admittedly unlikely, accidents. however, i do recognize the dilemma of having to go emission-neutral, like, you know, yesterday, and not having the technology to power everything from truly renewable sources right now. from what i hear it would be possible for germany to do without nuclear (unlike, e.g. france, who are highly dependent on it), with feasible effort. a problem with nuclear power plants is the timescales involved for building, running to break-even and deconstructing such a plant. almost all other power sources have less “inertia” — you can put them up and tear them down and clean them up much quicker. that’s my main worry, that continuing with (and re-investing in) nuclear will carry us on a trajectory that makes us stay with it out of laziness and investment/revenue interests longer than strictly necessary. i also do realize that my opinions are also a product of the culture that i come from, and that i might be rationalizing, but i am confident that people do underestimate the nuclear waste issues because of the timescales involved.

tjansen 5y ago
> unsolved waste question Why is it unsolved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...

marmarama 5y ago

Nuclear energy is expensive and unnecessary. A mix of renewables, coupled with battery and hydrogen-from-seawater energy storage technologies, will be cheaper, less capital-intensive, easier to maintain, and far easier to sell politically. It also has no nuclear proliferation concerns. There was concern that battery and hydrogen storage technologies would not be sufficient, or would not work practically, but as pilot projects are coming online, it's becoming clear that the engineering challenges involved are fairly straightforward. Fission power has its uses - the energy density is unrivalled, so will continue to have military and spaceflight applications - but its moment as a major component of the energy mix is coming to a close. Current new reactor builds in some western countries - Hinkley Point C in the UK, for example - are insurance policies that may well never end up on the grid, or may eventually operate as the only reactor in that country's energy mix. The complete lack of urgency with these new builds demonstrates the 'wait-and-see' approach.

tjansen 5y ago
> A mix of renewables, coupled with battery and hydrogen-from-seawater energy storage technologies, will be cheaper, less capital-intensive, easier to maintain, and far easier to sell politically. What will make it cheaper than nuclear power? Right now, it's more expensive than French nuclear power. And Germany doesn't even have storage technologies and has mostly concentrated on the low-hanging fruits. Off-shore wind and tiny solar installations on every residential root will be far more expensive that what has been done so far.
- marmarama 5y ago
  Siemens is currently building a pilot offshore wind-to-hydrogen plant, with an estimated in-service date of 2024. They're not the first to get a plant into service, but that's a lot quicker than a new nuclear plant. Is Siemens German enough? There are several other European energy and engineering companies also racing to do it, Shell and Total for example, and quite a few in the US and China. Offshore wind is currently modelled as more expensive per kWh over its lifetime (LCOE) than nuclear, but solar PVs and onshore wind are considerably cheaper. All three (especially PVs!) are reducing in price over time, whereas nuclear is becoming more expensive, primarily due to changes in safety requirements post-Fukushima. Importing nuclear power from France is especially cheap because the French reactors are already paid off - what Germany is paying is the marginal costs of generation, plus profit margin. New nuclear capacity is far (5-10 times!) more expensive, because nuclear requires such huge capital investments. France's reactors are beginning to come to the end of their lifespan, and as they are shut down, excess capacity will decrease and the price of importing French nuclear energy will increase substantially. France, like everywhere else in the western world, doesn't seem all that keen on replacing the reactors, and even if they do, energy from new reactors would need to be priced to pay off the capital costs.

chromanoid 5y ago

Germans fear nuclear power because of actual events. All people in their 30s have parents that were confronted with a situation similar to what we have now during the pandemic. They had to keep their children indoors and fear for their health. There were regular reports on radiation in the news, playgrounds were closed etc. "No milk, no mushrooms, no playing outside" https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/closed-off-playground-in-berlin-germany-after-the-nachrichtenfoto/542350527 https://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/closed-off...

einpoklum 5y ago

s/Germans/people everywhere/. > A disaster, say critics. Not a disaster, say others. > Nuclear power entails hardly any carbon emissions and offers consistent baseload supply, unlike intermittent renewables. The opposition to nuclear power generation was not based on carbon emissions, so this is a Red Herring. > bureaucracy and bottlenecks are slowing the rollout of renewables So, that seems to be the main problem. The German government knew it was facing the deadline but neglected to prepare for it.

CPLNTN 5y ago

As a European the main problem that i see, is that even if we assume Natural Gas and Nuclear are both equally bad, relying on natural gas make the EU reliant on russian gas furniture. And this in turns means that we can never take a hard stance against Russia, or else the pipelines will receive less, something that is already happened this year and that made electricity cost skyrocket in countries heavily reliant on energy import, like Italy.

incomplete 5y ago

paywall-free: https://archive.is/PAGLk https://archive.is/PAGLk