5 ms·

Ah yes, completely unscientific... Like the Russian soldiers who dug trenches in the "red forest" near Tschernobyl, got radiation poisoning and scattered the st

Ah yes, completely unscientific... Like the Russian soldiers who dug trenches in the "red forest" near Tschernobyl, got radiation poisoning and scattered the stuff all over the place where people still have to work to contain the impossible accident that happend decades ago. Yes, things like that and "Oh, from now on nothing will happen, science says so!"scares the shit out of people. Anti-scientific? There is just no public support for storing the waste anywhere near where people live. And there isn't a safe site in Germany anyway. Safe nuclear reactors may be decades away from broad commercialization.

pigeonhole123 5y ago
I don’t think any nuclear supporter would call Chernobyl impossible. Rather inevitable. Same as what will happen if we don’t go nuclear.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  I've heard a lot of supporters who generally disregard the possibility of future such accidents happening. Certainly you wouldn't want it to happen anywhere near you? And there is no clear, scientific reasoning that nuclear power is safer than the best mix of alternatives. First of all, any calculation to that regard is horrendously complicated on the nuclear side. Second of all, it always depends on the likelihoods observed in the past. There better be nobody sabotaging a nuclear plant, or stealing waste material for a dirty bomb and so on. Because that's impossible to calculate, so it is entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution.
jandrewrogers 5y ago
You realize that this is not a coherent and rational response, yes? You don't address anything, you just throw out oddly random straw men. Maybe I am incorrect but nothing you wrote would contribute to that discussion.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  In my opinion the opposition to nuclear power is not anti-scientific. It is bullshit to just label all the proponents scientists and the opposition non-scientists. There are two factions arguing on scientific grounds. That there is another level to the discussion, the fear of nuclear disasters is another topic. It is impossible to say where the "rational" level of fear is. Scientists have been wrong about the risks too often. With the huge downsides, people will gladly err on the side of caution. My arguments are examples why the "anti-scientific" argument is just BS. The fear is not always rational, but always legitimate. It is all about risk tolerance.
- funcDropShadow 5y ago
  GP might have ranted, but after decades of searching a suitable place for long-term storage of nuclear waste in Germany, the list of candidate sites is empty. And the willingness of anyone in Germany to tolerate a nuclear waste storage facility in their neighborhood is non existant. That is the reason why nuclear is unpopular in Germany. On the other hand, Germany also imported most of its uran from Russia. So that would have to change as well if Germany where to return to nuclear. The original article also treats all sources of electricity as interchangable. Some kind of plants are slow to turn on and up (e.g. nuclear plants) whereas others are very fast to turn on, off, up, or down (e.g. natural gas plants). The latter kind of plants is needed to compensate the unpredictability of solar and wind energy. Nuclear plants cannot fulfill that role. In my opinion Germany should have started to invest way more in the last two decades in synthetization of natural gas from thin air and cheap solar and wind energy. That would provide us with huge storage facilities for energy. And we could make huge amounts of natural gas heating unit eco-friendly without having to replace them. And even ten or fifteen years back it was clear that not being dependend on Russia would be a good thing.

pigeonhole123 5y ago

I don’t think any nuclear supporter would call Chernobyl impossible. Rather inevitable. Same as what will happen if we don’t go nuclear.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
I've heard a lot of supporters who generally disregard the possibility of future such accidents happening. Certainly you wouldn't want it to happen anywhere near you? And there is no clear, scientific reasoning that nuclear power is safer than the best mix of alternatives. First of all, any calculation to that regard is horrendously complicated on the nuclear side. Second of all, it always depends on the likelihoods observed in the past. There better be nobody sabotaging a nuclear plant, or stealing waste material for a dirty bomb and so on. Because that's impossible to calculate, so it is entirely reasonable to err on the side of caution.

jandrewrogers 5y ago

You realize that this is not a coherent and rational response, yes? You don't address anything, you just throw out oddly random straw men. Maybe I am incorrect but nothing you wrote would contribute to that discussion.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
In my opinion the opposition to nuclear power is not anti-scientific. It is bullshit to just label all the proponents scientists and the opposition non-scientists. There are two factions arguing on scientific grounds. That there is another level to the discussion, the fear of nuclear disasters is another topic. It is impossible to say where the "rational" level of fear is. Scientists have been wrong about the risks too often. With the huge downsides, people will gladly err on the side of caution. My arguments are examples why the "anti-scientific" argument is just BS. The fear is not always rational, but always legitimate. It is all about risk tolerance.
funcDropShadow 5y ago
GP might have ranted, but after decades of searching a suitable place for long-term storage of nuclear waste in Germany, the list of candidate sites is empty. And the willingness of anyone in Germany to tolerate a nuclear waste storage facility in their neighborhood is non existant. That is the reason why nuclear is unpopular in Germany. On the other hand, Germany also imported most of its uran from Russia. So that would have to change as well if Germany where to return to nuclear. The original article also treats all sources of electricity as interchangable. Some kind of plants are slow to turn on and up (e.g. nuclear plants) whereas others are very fast to turn on, off, up, or down (e.g. natural gas plants). The latter kind of plants is needed to compensate the unpredictability of solar and wind energy. Nuclear plants cannot fulfill that role. In my opinion Germany should have started to invest way more in the last two decades in synthetization of natural gas from thin air and cheap solar and wind energy. That would provide us with huge storage facilities for energy. And we could make huge amounts of natural gas heating unit eco-friendly without having to replace them. And even ten or fifteen years back it was clear that not being dependend on Russia would be a good thing.