8 ms·

Being anti-nuclear is deeply engrained in the DNA of Germany's green party. Even more so than climate change. In fact, when the anti-nuclear movement started, c

• omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
  There have been concerns about the risks of flooding to nuclear plants in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/06/german-nuclear-plants-flood/ https://energytransition.org/2013/06/german-nuclear-plants-f... Restarting nuclear isn't a bad idea, but it needs to be approached systematically and cautiously such that the risks from natural disasters and economic impacts are minimized, while also weighing the risks of continuing to support Russia. Unfortunately, many plants across the world have not had accurate risk assessments done, both for natural disasters and economic risks.
  • andbberger 5y ago
    > Restarting nuclear isn't a bad idea, but it needs to be approached systematically and cautiously such that the risks from natural disasters and economic impacts are minimized, while also weighing the risks of continuing to support Russia. smells like $$$ and more delays. nuclear is already by far the safest method of power production, and emits far fewer radionuclides than coal, and those numbers are the old generation more dangerous pressurized water reactors. water's lapping at our feet
    • Retric 5y ago
      That’s not completely accurate. Nuclear is less safe than grid solar, it slightly beats rooftop solar because standing on roofs is dangerous and most solar installs are new. Hydroelectric vs nuclear is tricky because large dams save lives and by reducing flooding etc, and installing hydroelectric when building a dam is much safer than building the dam in the first place. Which makes calculating the deaths from hydroelectric power tricky. Low head dams on the other hand are dangerous, but are largely abandoned technology.
      • daniel-cussen 5y ago
        > Nuclear is less safe than grid solar, it slightly beats rooftop solar because standing on roofs is dangerous and most solar installs are new. Yeah and making the solar panel, how green is that? I would like to add that they should bring in bouncy castles around homes when installing solar panels, the kids can play on them and primarily will definitely save the installer from falling. You could also package them together, like "Daddy daddy let's install solar panels" and kids could play in different places in the neighborhood that installed them one after another. And then you get a better image for the kids, plus you get to lower down the "people falling off roofs" statistic and make solar panel look even better.
        • freemint 5y ago
          > Yeah and making the solar panel, how green is that? Depending from where you buy them, quiet green. Produced with 100% renewables, made in Germany with polysilicon made in Europe. Why do you seem some emotional as if your identity is at stake here?
          • kleene_op 5y ago
            > made in Germany Not trying to defend the parent comment going off about bouncy castle, but I have a hard time believing that statement is true. This is the share of photovoltaic pannel production per region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribution-of-solar-pv-module-manufacturing/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/668749/regional-distribu...
            • freemint 5y ago
              I am not saying that every panel is. I am just saying there are companies which do exactly what i claimed exists. In particular i was referring to Meyer-Burgers. This company was a developer of photovoltaic production machines which they sold around the world but they recently shifted to building and owning their own high automation "giga"factories and have plans to build them in various western countries producing premium, long lasting cells with top efficiency. Those panels are sold today too. By the end of 2022 they claim to >2.0 GW (with plans to extend it to 2.8ish GW) of solar panel manufacturing capacity which gives them 1.X% market share world wide. Since they are a publicly traded company we will learn whether they made it or not. They also their own line of solar roof tiles in the pipeline.
  • mdavis6890 5y ago
    Flawed logic. Closing the nuclear plants has very large, real, tangible and undeniable costs. One cannot discuss the cost of opening them while ignoring the costs of closing them.
    • omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
      >while also weighing the risks of continuing to support Russia. There are many options. Specifically, Germany can... 1) Continue with BAU, which is Germany paying the costs of closing the reactors and relying on Russian gas. 2) Restart them as quickly as possible. This would minimize the costs of relying on Russia for gas, but would increase the risks of reactor problems from natural disasters. 3) Harden them for natural disasters while restarting them as quickly as possible, which costs more. 4) Use the money spent to harden them on other sources of generation/storage/load shifting/etc, which I suspect costs more. 5) Some of the above based on the specifics in each case. In addition, Germany would still be reliant on Russian gas for other industrial uses even if nuclear/renewables/coal/storage/etc were able to completely replace gas in the grid.
• steve_taylor 5y ago
  It’s not just the German greens. Australia’s greens are staunchly anti-nuclear despite it being the only viable solution to the baseload problem, which renewables haven’t yet solved.
  • natmaka 5y ago
    Baseload: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
  • pydry 5y ago
    ...other than pumped storage, demand shaping and more grid interconnects.
    • p1mrx 5y ago
      Demand shaping doesn't really solve the energy availability problem; it's "giving up, with computers."
      • pydry 5y ago
        Wind and solar solve the availability problem - at a fraction of the cost of nuclear power.
    • yellow_postit 5y ago
      Let’s do both! All the things you listed are exciting advancements but lacking the track record of nuclear.
    • tenuousemphasis 5y ago
      Pumped storage isn't a generic solution. You need two huge volume reservoirs with as much vertical separation as possible. That's just not feasible in most places of the world. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
  • bozhark 5y ago
• jcfrei 5y ago
  It's not just the green parties. There's a sizeable part of the population in the German speaking world (and I'm sure elsewhere too) that just views nuclear power as something unnatural and perverted. Something that's always going to be more dangerous than beneficial. I think this notion started even before the Chernobyl accident but that plus Fukushima really reaffirmed the fears lots of people had. It's a very shortsighted view of things but it's unlikely to change.
  • elesiuta 5y ago
    There's a name for this type of thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature which I find a little ironic since a natural nuclear fission reactor has actually been discovered.
  • ohthehugemanate 5y ago
    my personal experience living in several places in Germany: the whole appeal to nature argument is unreasonably effective here. Most germans will try an array of homeopathic remedies before taking ibuprofen. Most GP doctors advertise a secondary expertise in some woo or other, be it homeopathy, crystals, or osteopathy. It is downright tricky to find a doctor who will give you evidence based pharmaceuticals for your complaint; I can't tell you how many times I've come home from a doctor to look up the "medicine" they gave me, to find that it's some variant of hyper-diluted rosewater.
    • formerly_proven 5y ago
      > I can't tell you how many times I've come home from a doctor to look up the "medicine" they gave me, to find that it's some variant of hyper-diluted rosewater. Non-Germans might be shocked to find that most public/mandatory health insurers actually cover this. Even the language reflect this, since they're called "homeopathic pharmaceuticals".
      • ohthehugemanate 5y ago
        oh yeah, plus there's a whole FDA equivalent for homeopathic pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, at least here, when you buy a supplement, you are guaranteed that it contains the active ingredient as it says on the bottle.
• KarlKemp 5y ago
  At this point, nobody wants to change the policy. Not the greens, not the conservative party, nor the companies that own these power plants. It is simply not possible to run a dozen nuclear reactors on a two-weeks'-notice timescale, at least not in a democracy that respects property rights and safety practices. It's also economically unsound and technologically misguided, since nuclear power cannot replace the role gas has in the European grid.
  • hedora 5y ago
    The article argues for a 9 month timescale, not two weeks, and suggests replacing the role Russian gas has in the European grid. It then shows the decommissioned nuclear plants and the gas plants it proposes shutting down have enough capacity to do exactly that.
    • DasIch 5y ago
      Gas usage for electricity is insignificant and irrelevant for the discussion at large. What Germany is concerned about is usage of gas for heating and in industry. Turn of the gas and realistically, parts of German industry will be destroyed at a 0.5-6% loss to GDP.
      • hedora 5y ago
        But the "insignficant" gas usage for electricity is more than total Russian imports. So, ramping up alternative electricity production would avoid the GDP hit and the dependency on Russia.
      • akimball 5y ago
        Seems a de minimis cost compared to megadeath and a vast refugee crisis
        • DasIch 5y ago
          That's only a reasonable comparison to make, if there are no other options. If there are other options, which is clearly the case, you have to compare to those. A refugee crisis isn't all that bad by the way. Politically it's a problem but economically a 2016 scale refugee crisis every year would be quite good for Germany. Germany needs huge amounts of people, especially people working in trades, to do the work necessary to switch heat pumps, install solar, build more housing etc. They have to come from somewhere and demographics means they have to come from a massive increase in immigration.
• bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political ideology. You aren't for or against nuclear power because you don't generally like the people who are against nuclear power. I don't see the major arguments against nuclear power being negated by either climate change or the war in Ukraine. So no, there is no mistake. Nuclear power isn't the right way forward for Germany.
  • troppl 5y ago
    > Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political Sorry, I don't get this. Of course your opposition on something can be based on ideology. That is the case if your opposition is more based on your history and tradition than on current facts. I personally think that there are enough facts to say that nuclear is not really a great option, but I also think that the Green's opposition is based more on ideology (i.e. because they have been historically against it) than on facts. For me, that is evident when they talk more about nuclear risks in general than about financial considerations.
    • bayesian_horse 5y ago
      The distinction of "history and tradition" and "current facts", as well as "nuclear risks" and "financial considerations" is entirely arbitrary. You assume people are against nuclear power not because they are convinced because of the facts (as they see it). Or are you confusing your opinion with "facts"? That may explain why you think that a different tolerance for risk is not fact-based, because it is counter to your opinion what a reasonable risk tolerance is. Most of the Germans who would vote against nuclear power have nothing to do with any combination of "Greens", "Socialists", "Hippies" or whatever other pejorative you can come up with. Individuals largely decide this on their own and the consensus was reached. If you think Greens are opposed to nuclear power because "they always been against it", you just never heard them out and just assume that. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
  • dzikimarian 5y ago
    Of course it's political. Schroeder went with Greens for various reasons - some of them include his voters being coal miners on verge of protests. Others may be connected to him being on board of the Gazprom.