5 ms·

Does anyone have a good political explanation for Europe's hostility to nuclear power? Is it really just post-Fukushima nuclear concern? There are so many pre

Does anyone have a good political explanation for Europe's hostility to nuclear power? Is it really just post-Fukushima nuclear concern? There are so many pressing issues at stake - CO2 production, dependency on an increasingly aggressive foreign adversary for fuel - that it seems like there must be some logic, but I can't figure it out. Even if wind/solar are cheaper than nuclear, it doesn't seem that they can become the only type of of energy supplied in Europe due to variability issues.

pfortuny 5y ago
Oh, no, it started in the seventies, around that. It is a mixture of "look what happens if we let everybody have nuclear power: now Pakistan and India have it, and there is a great chance of a nuclear conflict" (simplifying). And at the same time the ecologists, saying "NO to nuclear power" (I remember this in my childhood in Spain, it was huge). Fuckushima has turned it into what seems a non-negotiable idea at any costs. But notice that some weeks ago the European Commission decided to push for calling nuclear "green" (I agree with this) but also liquified gas (!!).
- jfk13 5y ago
  Yes, it was pretty big. I remember the slogan as "Nuclear power? No thanks!" in the UK.
- ciabattabread 5y ago
  So how did France end up being a giant producer of nuclear energy?
  - ArnoVW 5y ago
    The UK, Germany and the Netherlands had respectively oil, coal and gas reserves. France only had uranium reserves in Africa. Also, de Gaul figured out quickly that without nukes, France would cease to count geopolitically. To build nukes you need a nuclear industry.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > To build nukes you need a nuclear industry. The corollary being, if you want to reduce the chance of nuclear war, you should phase out civilian nuclear power. At the very least, we should limit nuclear energy to only countries that are declared nuclear weapon states. If necessary, the ban could apply to only building new nuclear power plants after some agreed date (e.g. 2045), to give some time to improve battery and other energy storage technologies. Also, the nuclear weapon states should commit to using 10% of their installed capacity on atmospheric carbon capture, as a tax on the privilege of operating that dangerous technology. This would effectively be a carbon dividend for countries that had to forego using nuclear energy.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  LNG is green(er), compared to coal. People want to not freeze in winter. They're going to try to heat with something. If they don't burn coal, and they don't heat with nuclear- or renewable-created electricity, then what's left? LNG in a power plant or NG in their home is greener than the alternative. You want to go still greener? Great. But this winter, people still want to be warm, and if your answer is "create more renewable energy in five years", that's not going to cut it.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "You want to go still greener? Great. But this winter, people still want to be warm, and if your answer is "create more renewable energy in five years", that's not going to cut it. " It looks like you are fighting straw men. No one here pledged for abolishment of gas or coal as of today. It is a general discussion of where we are heading. So yes, how could we still be warm in 5 years. 10. 20. Oh and the general question of whether our choices today will lead too much warmth in general.
    - chess_buster 5y ago
      Electrolyze the massive overproduction in the summer into gas, store it for the winter.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        One possible solution, even though you need really massive overproduction in summer, due to the big losses in transformation.
  - pfortuny 5y ago
    I never said I was against using it. Just calling it “green” (no ‘er’) is simply false, misleading and against what they have been calling it for years. I am all for nuclear and greener energy. I am totally against doublespeak.
dilyevsky 5y ago
Chernobyl scare is probably more top of mind still given the prevailing wind at the time spread it over european territory
theptip 5y ago
I have two general reasons that I think are salient: The public is terrified of nuclear and governments are responding to that. The electorate is structurally incapable of asking for slightly more people to die in order to avert huge numbers of people dying. Therefore “more nuclear” is not a valid option even for many that think there is existential risk from climate change.
fatcat500 5y ago
Yes. Nuclear Is a threat to socialists/environmentalists because it would deprive them of an excellent source of political capital. Namely, the justifications required to artificially increase the price of energy, to pass regulation which controls the manufacture of goods, and to regulate lifestyles and culture. All sectors of the economy depend on the energy sector. Control the energy sector means control of the entire economy. I’m not saying that climate change isn’t a real threat, nor that scientists are wrong in their predictions, nor that we don’t have to make a change in how we produce energy. However, what makes environmentalism useful to the political class has nothing to do with the hard science behind energy, civilization, and the health of our planet. What the political class sees in this movement is the perfect set of excuses to increase the size of the central government.
bpizzi 5y ago
Not really Fukushima, more likely Chernobyl and the disastrous handling of governments trying to hide things instead of taking action, explaining complexities and planning further education. That let a wide open hole for every naysayer for spraying and preaching political and scientific non-sense. Let it rot 20y without addressing the issue and you'll pick anyone on our streets today and be virtually assured that one's either totally afraid or fully ignorant of nuclear power.
- eliaspro 5y ago
  Furthermore, Chernobyl isn't something for Europeans that was far far away or a long time ago. Germany spends (and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future) millions each year to compensate for losses of hunters and farmers due to radioactive contamination which accumulates in wild boars and mushrooms which have to undergo inspection before being sold. Everything above 600Bq needs to be discarded as contaminated waste.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Yes, and it's worth bearing in mind that Chernobyl was far from the worst case scenario. We were very lucky that Chernobyl was located in an isolated area and that the wind didn't blow the radioactive material towards Kyiv or another densely populated area. A Chernobyl-like event that ended up making a major city uninhabitable would be a crisis on another level.
kitkat_new 5y ago
"Even if wind/solar are cheaper than nuclear, it doesn't seem that they can become the only type of of energy supplied in Europe due to variability issues." They can with storage systems, e.g. hydrogen
fsflover 5y ago
> Does anyone have a good political explanation for Europe's hostility to nuclear power? Perhaps because of oil funding of anti-nuclear FUD: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f... https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-nuclear-movement https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-n...
lm28469 5y ago
> Is it really just post-Fukushima nuclear concern? It's mostly German ideology being forced down every other countries. France had one of the the cleanest and cheapest energy and is bullied into selling it to the European market at loss... Germany is shutting down its nuclear sources while buying from other nuclear powered countries (France, Finland) and gas from russia. They just don't want it to happen on their land, but as long as they can keep the "we produce green energy" lie they'll be happy.
- b3orn 5y ago
  If it's so cheap why us France selling at loss? Germany is still exporting more than importing and the gas is mostly for heating. > They just don't want it to happen on their land, but as long as they can keep the "we produce green energy" lie they'll be happy. I can't see how this fits with your first sentence, either they're forcing other countries to give up nuclear power or they're forcing them to keep it running.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    > If it's so cheap why us France selling at loss? It's a long story. Basically EDF (électricité de France) was a monopoly (which is fine because it's nationalised) but Europe asked to break this monopoly (capitalism says monopoly = bad). The problem is that third parties can't really build nuclear power plants or hydroelectric dams to generate their own electricity (because it's hard and expensive, which is why it was nationalised in the first place), so Europe forces EDF to sell electricity to the European market at a fixed price (which is currently lower than the market price) which is then bought by third parties and sold to customers for a profit. The bottom line is that EDF was built with public money and is now financing private entities at a loss... Now for the fun part, these competitor don't do anything other than buying low and selling high. EDF still is a monopoly in term of energy production, it's just not allowed to benefit from it. None of these third party benefits are reinjected in the country's energy production system. > either they're forcing other countries to give up nuclear power It's an ongoing process, they themselves want to stop nuclear but for now they're very happy about buying electricity from nuclear powered countries. If you want to read more about it: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_290 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_... https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/EDF-to-sell-more-cheap-electricity-to-competitors-to-keep-prices-low https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/EDF-to-sell-more...

pfortuny 5y ago

Oh, no, it started in the seventies, around that. It is a mixture of "look what happens if we let everybody have nuclear power: now Pakistan and India have it, and there is a great chance of a nuclear conflict" (simplifying). And at the same time the ecologists, saying "NO to nuclear power" (I remember this in my childhood in Spain, it was huge). Fuckushima has turned it into what seems a non-negotiable idea at any costs. But notice that some weeks ago the European Commission decided to push for calling nuclear "green" (I agree with this) but also liquified gas (!!).

jfk13 5y ago
Yes, it was pretty big. I remember the slogan as "Nuclear power? No thanks!" in the UK.
ciabattabread 5y ago
So how did France end up being a giant producer of nuclear energy?
- ArnoVW 5y ago
  The UK, Germany and the Netherlands had respectively oil, coal and gas reserves. France only had uranium reserves in Africa. Also, de Gaul figured out quickly that without nukes, France would cease to count geopolitically. To build nukes you need a nuclear industry.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > To build nukes you need a nuclear industry. The corollary being, if you want to reduce the chance of nuclear war, you should phase out civilian nuclear power. At the very least, we should limit nuclear energy to only countries that are declared nuclear weapon states. If necessary, the ban could apply to only building new nuclear power plants after some agreed date (e.g. 2045), to give some time to improve battery and other energy storage technologies. Also, the nuclear weapon states should commit to using 10% of their installed capacity on atmospheric carbon capture, as a tax on the privilege of operating that dangerous technology. This would effectively be a carbon dividend for countries that had to forego using nuclear energy.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
LNG is green(er), compared to coal. People want to not freeze in winter. They're going to try to heat with something. If they don't burn coal, and they don't heat with nuclear- or renewable-created electricity, then what's left? LNG in a power plant or NG in their home is greener than the alternative. You want to go still greener? Great. But this winter, people still want to be warm, and if your answer is "create more renewable energy in five years", that's not going to cut it.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "You want to go still greener? Great. But this winter, people still want to be warm, and if your answer is "create more renewable energy in five years", that's not going to cut it. " It looks like you are fighting straw men. No one here pledged for abolishment of gas or coal as of today. It is a general discussion of where we are heading. So yes, how could we still be warm in 5 years. 10. 20. Oh and the general question of whether our choices today will lead too much warmth in general.
  - chess_buster 5y ago
    Electrolyze the massive overproduction in the summer into gas, store it for the winter.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      One possible solution, even though you need really massive overproduction in summer, due to the big losses in transformation.
- pfortuny 5y ago
  I never said I was against using it. Just calling it “green” (no ‘er’) is simply false, misleading and against what they have been calling it for years. I am all for nuclear and greener energy. I am totally against doublespeak.

dilyevsky 5y ago

Chernobyl scare is probably more top of mind still given the prevailing wind at the time spread it over european territory

theptip 5y ago

I have two general reasons that I think are salient: The public is terrified of nuclear and governments are responding to that. The electorate is structurally incapable of asking for slightly more people to die in order to avert huge numbers of people dying. Therefore “more nuclear” is not a valid option even for many that think there is existential risk from climate change.

fatcat500 5y ago

Yes. Nuclear Is a threat to socialists/environmentalists because it would deprive them of an excellent source of political capital. Namely, the justifications required to artificially increase the price of energy, to pass regulation which controls the manufacture of goods, and to regulate lifestyles and culture. All sectors of the economy depend on the energy sector. Control the energy sector means control of the entire economy. I’m not saying that climate change isn’t a real threat, nor that scientists are wrong in their predictions, nor that we don’t have to make a change in how we produce energy. However, what makes environmentalism useful to the political class has nothing to do with the hard science behind energy, civilization, and the health of our planet. What the political class sees in this movement is the perfect set of excuses to increase the size of the central government.

bpizzi 5y ago

Not really Fukushima, more likely Chernobyl and the disastrous handling of governments trying to hide things instead of taking action, explaining complexities and planning further education. That let a wide open hole for every naysayer for spraying and preaching political and scientific non-sense. Let it rot 20y without addressing the issue and you'll pick anyone on our streets today and be virtually assured that one's either totally afraid or fully ignorant of nuclear power.

eliaspro 5y ago
Furthermore, Chernobyl isn't something for Europeans that was far far away or a long time ago. Germany spends (and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future) millions each year to compensate for losses of hunters and farmers due to radioactive contamination which accumulates in wild boars and mushrooms which have to undergo inspection before being sold. Everything above 600Bq needs to be discarded as contaminated waste.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Yes, and it's worth bearing in mind that Chernobyl was far from the worst case scenario. We were very lucky that Chernobyl was located in an isolated area and that the wind didn't blow the radioactive material towards Kyiv or another densely populated area. A Chernobyl-like event that ended up making a major city uninhabitable would be a crisis on another level.

kitkat_new 5y ago

"Even if wind/solar are cheaper than nuclear, it doesn't seem that they can become the only type of of energy supplied in Europe due to variability issues." They can with storage systems, e.g. hydrogen

fsflover 5y ago

> Does anyone have a good political explanation for Europe's hostility to nuclear power? Perhaps because of oil funding of anti-nuclear FUD: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f... https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-nuclear-movement https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-n...

lm28469 5y ago

> Is it really just post-Fukushima nuclear concern? It's mostly German ideology being forced down every other countries. France had one of the the cleanest and cheapest energy and is bullied into selling it to the European market at loss... Germany is shutting down its nuclear sources while buying from other nuclear powered countries (France, Finland) and gas from russia. They just don't want it to happen on their land, but as long as they can keep the "we produce green energy" lie they'll be happy.

b3orn 5y ago
If it's so cheap why us France selling at loss? Germany is still exporting more than importing and the gas is mostly for heating. > They just don't want it to happen on their land, but as long as they can keep the "we produce green energy" lie they'll be happy. I can't see how this fits with your first sentence, either they're forcing other countries to give up nuclear power or they're forcing them to keep it running.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > If it's so cheap why us France selling at loss? It's a long story. Basically EDF (électricité de France) was a monopoly (which is fine because it's nationalised) but Europe asked to break this monopoly (capitalism says monopoly = bad). The problem is that third parties can't really build nuclear power plants or hydroelectric dams to generate their own electricity (because it's hard and expensive, which is why it was nationalised in the first place), so Europe forces EDF to sell electricity to the European market at a fixed price (which is currently lower than the market price) which is then bought by third parties and sold to customers for a profit. The bottom line is that EDF was built with public money and is now financing private entities at a loss... Now for the fun part, these competitor don't do anything other than buying low and selling high. EDF still is a monopoly in term of energy production, it's just not allowed to benefit from it. None of these third party benefits are reinjected in the country's energy production system. > either they're forcing other countries to give up nuclear power It's an ongoing process, they themselves want to stop nuclear but for now they're very happy about buying electricity from nuclear powered countries. If you want to read more about it: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_290 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_... https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/EDF-to-sell-more-cheap-electricity-to-competitors-to-keep-prices-low https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/EDF-to-sell-more...