4 ms·

I don't get it. A nuclear accident halfway across the world and Germany decides to shut down. A war halfway across the continent and it decides to keep on? Bot

I don't get it. A nuclear accident halfway across the world and Germany decides to shut down. A war halfway across the continent and it decides to keep on? Both threats (nuclear accident and Putin's madness) have always existed. What changed? Did they suddenly discover Putin is not trustworthy to depend on for half of your energy supply?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
markdown 5y ago
In a democracy, you need public support for this sort of thing. The anti-nuclear movement has been behind the shutdowns. With Russia invading Ukraine, nuclear proponents might be able to sway public opinion in the opposite direction for once.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  This is like Brexit, the populous are too easily led away from reason when nuclear power is mentioned. I'm not sure what the solution is. People were freaking the F out in South Wales, UK, because sand from Sizewell development (near Bristol) was being dumped a mile offshore, sand with one or two banana-equivalent doses per tonne (IIRC). Like maybe if you spend every day at the beach eating sand then you might be able to cause yourself some harm but there's no beach in Cardiff, the sand is way offshore and UK needs more non-fossil baseline power sources. I think perhaps the public information giving preparedness guidance for nuclear war did a number on us in the 80s. Chernobyl didn't exactly help, mind you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spockz 5y ago
What changed is that to move away from nuclear the dependency on Gas has increased. This alleviated the immediate stress levels generated from the nuclear disasters around the world. Then a more immediate threat popped up by Russia invading Ukraine. This makes the gas dependency a liability again. This makes the far away risk of something might go very wrong with nuclear palatable again compared to the gas is risky right now.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  Large scale nuclear plants - whether alive or dead are important strategic and tactical elements in modern warfare https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/26/conflict-between-nuclear-powered-nations-chernobyl-now-war-zone https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/26/conflict-betwe... Small nuclear reactors are the answer imo. Russia has poured funding into opposing fracking for natural gas and encouraging european green initiatives arguably to increase their grip on euopean energy supplies https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1497253139837190144 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14972531398371901...
christkv 5y ago
Never mind that they live right next door to the most active user of nuclear power in Europe France. So likelihood of a nuclear accident not affecting them is close to zero.
- steve_gh 5y ago
  Not just right next door, but downwind
- chromanoid 5y ago
  So just go with it and multiply the risk further? It's like saying, my partner smokes cigarettes, so me also doing so, will not raise my cancer risk.
  - acidburnNSA 5y ago
    Nuclear plants have net saved some million of lives by displacing air pollution, even when considering the risks of radiation accidents. Germany could shut down coal and leave nuclear on and save 1000 people per year. Not to mention climate change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057
    - chromanoid 5y ago
      That might be true, the risk still multiplies rendering the original comment nonsense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thelittleone 5y ago
I see sub $1m revenue businesses doing supply chain risk analysis. Surprised that a great nation such as Germany could justify 50% of it's energy coming from Russia.
_ph_ 5y ago
Half way across the continent? Lwiw is closer to Berlin than Paris. But its not about the distance but the impact on the energy supply as the trade with Russia is falling apart. Yet, I don't think there will be a major swing to nuclear. First, it is very expensive and secondly, nuclear doesn't work well in combination with renewables, as nuclear power plants are very slow to change power output. Thats the big bonus of gas. The most reasonable solution is, to source gas elsewhere and push for renewables.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

markdown 5y ago

In a democracy, you need public support for this sort of thing. The anti-nuclear movement has been behind the shutdowns. With Russia invading Ukraine, nuclear proponents might be able to sway public opinion in the opposite direction for once.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
This is like Brexit, the populous are too easily led away from reason when nuclear power is mentioned. I'm not sure what the solution is. People were freaking the F out in South Wales, UK, because sand from Sizewell development (near Bristol) was being dumped a mile offshore, sand with one or two banana-equivalent doses per tonne (IIRC). Like maybe if you spend every day at the beach eating sand then you might be able to cause yourself some harm but there's no beach in Cardiff, the sand is way offshore and UK needs more non-fossil baseline power sources. I think perhaps the public information giving preparedness guidance for nuclear war did a number on us in the 80s. Chernobyl didn't exactly help, mind you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spockz 5y ago

What changed is that to move away from nuclear the dependency on Gas has increased. This alleviated the immediate stress levels generated from the nuclear disasters around the world. Then a more immediate threat popped up by Russia invading Ukraine. This makes the gas dependency a liability again. This makes the far away risk of something might go very wrong with nuclear palatable again compared to the gas is risky right now.

olivermarks 5y ago
Large scale nuclear plants - whether alive or dead are important strategic and tactical elements in modern warfare https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/26/conflict-between-nuclear-powered-nations-chernobyl-now-war-zone https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/26/conflict-betwe... Small nuclear reactors are the answer imo. Russia has poured funding into opposing fracking for natural gas and encouraging european green initiatives arguably to increase their grip on euopean energy supplies https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1497253139837190144 https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/14972531398371901...

christkv 5y ago

Never mind that they live right next door to the most active user of nuclear power in Europe France. So likelihood of a nuclear accident not affecting them is close to zero.

steve_gh 5y ago
Not just right next door, but downwind
chromanoid 5y ago
So just go with it and multiply the risk further? It's like saying, my partner smokes cigarettes, so me also doing so, will not raise my cancer risk.
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  Nuclear plants have net saved some million of lives by displacing air pollution, even when considering the risks of radiation accidents. Germany could shut down coal and leave nuclear on and save 1000 people per year. Not to mention climate change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057
  - chromanoid 5y ago
    That might be true, the risk still multiplies rendering the original comment nonsense.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

thelittleone 5y ago

I see sub $1m revenue businesses doing supply chain risk analysis. Surprised that a great nation such as Germany could justify 50% of it's energy coming from Russia.

_ph_ 5y ago

Half way across the continent? Lwiw is closer to Berlin than Paris. But its not about the distance but the impact on the energy supply as the trade with Russia is falling apart. Yet, I don't think there will be a major swing to nuclear. First, it is very expensive and secondly, nuclear doesn't work well in combination with renewables, as nuclear power plants are very slow to change power output. Thats the big bonus of gas. The most reasonable solution is, to source gas elsewhere and push for renewables.