4 ms·

>The discussion around Fukushima is not about the loss of land that got rendered uninhabitable, it is exclusively focused on the loss of life. This conversatio

>The discussion around Fukushima is not about the loss of land that got rendered uninhabitable, it is exclusively focused on the loss of life. This conversation is happening in response to my mentioning of Fukushima (see the thread above). I did not focus exclusively on the loss of life and do not see why the discussion should be restricted to that topic. Nevertheless, "uninhabitable" means people cannot live there so it's still within your frame. You cannot live in the area with significant radioactivity without risking your life. Loss of life can be prevented by quickly moving people from the dangerous area, but this is also undesirable. This is not comparable to environmental effects related to construction of dams or mining activities, because those can be estimated in advance and mitigations including resettling can be planned. This is also the reason why new mining projects in Germany are rarely happening and there's ongoing process to stop mining coal. If you want to account for possible radioactive fallout from a nuclear plant incident and plan mitigations in advance, there's simply no place in Germany where you could put a circle with 30-50 km radius and just remove all people from there. Practically all land in Germany is covered by urban areas, agricultural lands or natural reserves - increased risks associated with extension of timeline for existing reactors without major and time-consuming investment are unacceptable there.

belorn 5y ago
Are you saying that its acceptable that an energy source is creating large areas of uninhabitable land, as long as it slow enough that people can plan for it? Quickly moving people from the dangerous area is undesirable, but as I said previously, California did exactly that. It would be interesting to see an estimate on how many died from it so we could make an apple to apple comparison. When looking at energy sources it is good to look at statistics. Per unit of energy produced, how much land is used. How many lives are lost. How many are maimed or injured. If we are jumping directly to unacceptable risks, continuing funding Russian military is unacceptable risk to Germany. Continuing burning fossil fuel and causing global warming is unacceptable. Not having enough enough electricity produced to meet demand is unacceptable. Paying more for electricity than the economy can handle is unacceptable. Continuing having nuclear power plants is unacceptable. Solving the unacceptable problems seems to be impossible, and thus some things that are unacceptable will need to be accepted. The question is which one people are willing to stomach. Personally I kind of dislike the idea of funding civilian slaughter and Russian quest for lebensraum.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  > Personally I kind of dislike the idea of funding civilian slaughter and Russian quest for lebensraum. Germany stopping buying gas now will neither stop the war, nor it will prevent Russian military from receiving money from Russian government. Everyone who repeats this idea as you do is just diverting the discussion from other options. Yes, you may feel some moral obligation to cut off economic ties to Russia, but there are always stupid moral choices (doing more harm than good) and reasonable ones. Continuing with nuclear, stopping gas imports are both stupid choices. Locking cash paid for gas on an escrow account in neutral country could work better. Accelerating investment in renewables and energy conservation, cutting red tape, shipping heavy weapons and offering other support to Ukraine are more pragmatic and impactful options.
  - belorn 5y ago
    The risk that continuing buying gas from Russia will cause more war and further destruction is higher than the risk that continuing operations of nuclear power will cause a nuclear accident. We can call names if we want. Continuing heating the planet up by burning fossil fuels when we have a cleaner option is stupid and history won't look favorable to fossil fuel advocates. There is a mass extinction occurring all over the world, especially in the oceans, just because people are afraid of a once in 100,000 year risk that with modern technology is even smaller risk. There has never been a earthquake recorded in Germany that has been large enough to interfere with German nuclear plants. Utterly madness how afraid people are to something which won't occur. Conflict resources are internationally known to be a factor in war, in contributing to war, and to prolong wars. It doesn't matter if the aggressor is an IS, some warlord in Congo, or Russia. A major tactic dealing with IS was to cut their funding, and while it did take many years, the effect of cutting IS funding is rarely disputed.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      > Utterly madness how afraid people are to something which won't occur. What you are doing here is a perversion of facts and opinions. Nobody is afraid of a nuclear incident caused by an earthquake in Germany. Nobody in this thread was talking about it. The examples of Fukushima or Chernobyl were provided only as examples of unforeseen events, that illustrate why safety must be taken seriously, why any „acceleration“ is dangerous and why actual risks and costs can be higher than some people wish to see. >The risk that continuing buying gas from Russia will cause more war and further destruction is higher than the risk that continuing operations of nuclear power will cause a nuclear accident. Europe will stop buying gas from Russia relatively soon to ensure it has less resources to wage new wars. It is absolutely baseless claim to say that immediate stop will have a significant positive impact.

belorn 5y ago

Are you saying that its acceptable that an energy source is creating large areas of uninhabitable land, as long as it slow enough that people can plan for it? Quickly moving people from the dangerous area is undesirable, but as I said previously, California did exactly that. It would be interesting to see an estimate on how many died from it so we could make an apple to apple comparison. When looking at energy sources it is good to look at statistics. Per unit of energy produced, how much land is used. How many lives are lost. How many are maimed or injured. If we are jumping directly to unacceptable risks, continuing funding Russian military is unacceptable risk to Germany. Continuing burning fossil fuel and causing global warming is unacceptable. Not having enough enough electricity produced to meet demand is unacceptable. Paying more for electricity than the economy can handle is unacceptable. Continuing having nuclear power plants is unacceptable. Solving the unacceptable problems seems to be impossible, and thus some things that are unacceptable will need to be accepted. The question is which one people are willing to stomach. Personally I kind of dislike the idea of funding civilian slaughter and Russian quest for lebensraum.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
> Personally I kind of dislike the idea of funding civilian slaughter and Russian quest for lebensraum. Germany stopping buying gas now will neither stop the war, nor it will prevent Russian military from receiving money from Russian government. Everyone who repeats this idea as you do is just diverting the discussion from other options. Yes, you may feel some moral obligation to cut off economic ties to Russia, but there are always stupid moral choices (doing more harm than good) and reasonable ones. Continuing with nuclear, stopping gas imports are both stupid choices. Locking cash paid for gas on an escrow account in neutral country could work better. Accelerating investment in renewables and energy conservation, cutting red tape, shipping heavy weapons and offering other support to Ukraine are more pragmatic and impactful options.
- belorn 5y ago
  The risk that continuing buying gas from Russia will cause more war and further destruction is higher than the risk that continuing operations of nuclear power will cause a nuclear accident. We can call names if we want. Continuing heating the planet up by burning fossil fuels when we have a cleaner option is stupid and history won't look favorable to fossil fuel advocates. There is a mass extinction occurring all over the world, especially in the oceans, just because people are afraid of a once in 100,000 year risk that with modern technology is even smaller risk. There has never been a earthquake recorded in Germany that has been large enough to interfere with German nuclear plants. Utterly madness how afraid people are to something which won't occur. Conflict resources are internationally known to be a factor in war, in contributing to war, and to prolong wars. It doesn't matter if the aggressor is an IS, some warlord in Congo, or Russia. A major tactic dealing with IS was to cut their funding, and while it did take many years, the effect of cutting IS funding is rarely disputed.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    > Utterly madness how afraid people are to something which won't occur. What you are doing here is a perversion of facts and opinions. Nobody is afraid of a nuclear incident caused by an earthquake in Germany. Nobody in this thread was talking about it. The examples of Fukushima or Chernobyl were provided only as examples of unforeseen events, that illustrate why safety must be taken seriously, why any „acceleration“ is dangerous and why actual risks and costs can be higher than some people wish to see. >The risk that continuing buying gas from Russia will cause more war and further destruction is higher than the risk that continuing operations of nuclear power will cause a nuclear accident. Europe will stop buying gas from Russia relatively soon to ensure it has less resources to wage new wars. It is absolutely baseless claim to say that immediate stop will have a significant positive impact.