8 ms·
> It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany. What part of this entire discussion has anything do to with science? Is anyone actual
by AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> It's just sad to see how little actual science is respected in Germany.
What part of this entire discussion has anything do to with science? Is anyone actually contesting the science?
Is it a discussion about the number of orbitals of uranium atoms? Or is it a discussion on which entities handle the long-term financials obligations, whether we favor or not decentralized grids, whether we favor short term or longer term solutions -- which in turn depends on whether the (possibly international) risks are long term or short term, etc. Not much of the later is "science".
Politics is not a science and never can be. This entire story -- the word "green" itself -- is as unscientific as it gets. Not in the "science contradicts it" sense; I mean in the "this is neither provable nor falsifiable and science has nothing to do with it" sense.
- BurningFrog 4y agoA lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again, and that scientists are arrogantly playing god when they explain what can and can't happen
- k__ 4y agoThe last time I heard a physicist evaluate nuclear, it didn't look like any notable improvements happened in the last 20 years.
- hedora 4y agoWell, maybe, but most nuclear reactor designs are at least 50 years out of date, and a lot of progress was made between 1970 and 2000.
- neuronexmachina 4y agoDo you have the source where you heard that? Also worth noting that Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island were all built 50-60 years ago.
- BurningFrog 4y agoRight. This is a bit like evaluating airline safety based on the design of Amelia Earhart's plane.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoWhat "scientific" analysis has claimed "chernobyl can't happen again" ? It would be as ridiculous as someone claiming the new Airbus XXX model can't crash. Even analysis of the type "a chernobyl will happen once every XX years" are more political in nature than scientific, since you are assuming a stable society for decades to come (i.e. no degradation in the skill level of constructors or operators, etc. -- even foreign ones). Which, barring sudden miraculous discoveries in the area of Psychohistory, is basically entirely politics and outside the realm of science.
- BurningFrog 4y agoChernobyl can't happen again because the awful design that made that failure possible is long ago abandoned. It's a bit like how the Airbus A380 can't crash like the Hindenburg airship did.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoI'm quite sure that no one who asks "can chernobyl can happen again?" is actually interested in the response to "can chernobyl happen again _in exactly the same way_"?. This is malicious nitpicking. In the same way that I'm sure the victims of the next Airbus crash will be happy to know that "it didn't crash like the Hindenburg did".
- knorker 4y agoIs it not malicious to scream "chernobyl!" willfully deceptively or willfully ignorantly confusing what can and cannot happen? More people die every single year from radiation in coal than have died in the entire history of nuclear power. Replacing all coal with nuclear would save more lives and health than fighting nuclear ever could, even in theory. And delaying coal to nuclear under the banner of "wind and solar maybe one day can help a bit" has blood on its hands. Every year coal is still here, instead of nuclear, is 100 years of death. If building powerplants (of any type) were instant, and solar were one year away, then we should STILL replace all coal with nuclear TODAY, to minimize harm. (in a spherical chickens in a vacuum sort of way) And not only do we not have enough solar, we don't even have a plan for energy storage for solar and wind. We have ideas, not a plan. So solar&wind replacing coal&nuclear is further away than fusion power, by multiples.
- Patrol8394 4y agoLet's talk Fukushima ?
- trinovantes 4y agoIssues with Fukushima that could've prevented the disaster were raised by engineers/scientists but were ignored for years by the government/politicians
- 8note 4y agoThat's always going to happen though. The government doesn't always have attention and money to shower on nuclear plants.
- sangnoir 4y ago...and what lessons can we draw from this?
- trinovantes 4y agoTrust your nuclear scientists/engineers because they know what they're doing and are, in fact, not playing god
- YetAnotherNick 4y agoSo? Anything could have been prevented on hindsight.
- theshrike79 4y agoIt's not hindsight when someone warns you beforehand.
- wolverine876 4y agoGiven a large enough population, you can always in hindsight find someone who predicted the outcome.
- hammock 4y agoThank you for this common sense reply. The truth is Chernobyl can never happen again, and scientists are completely all-knowing when they explain what can and can't happen.
- q1w2 4y agoArguing with an anti-nuclear activist is indistiguishable to arguing with an anti-vax or climate change denier. They are the same people who opposed all GMO food products despite the science.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kelnos 4y ago> They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again Of course it can! It's almost certainly much less likely now, but I don't think anyone has presented convincing evidence that it's impossible that something like that could happen again. And that's a really big deal. Even if the risk of another Chernobyl is ridiculously low, another Chernobyl would be so bad that it's worth considering. Having said that, I do support nuclear energy, and wish there wasn't so much FUD spread about it. But let's not delude ourselves into believing there are no safety concerns, or that we've solved the waste storage/disposal problem.
- fsflover 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion_(psychology)
- wolverine876 4y ago> A lot of the anti-nuclear opinion is passionately opposed to scientific analysis. It's easy to disparage people who disagree with you (and if they disagree, they must be unscientific! They couldn't be difficult issues and serious concerns). It only poisons attempts to move forward and learn anything. Much of anti-nuclear energy opinion has been led by scientists and most of the more scientifically sophisticated people I know are very skeptical about nuclear power (including me). The disparagement makes it look like reactionary politics, not scientific interest - that is their modus operendi - and of course, the reactionary attempt to discredit anything progressive is currently focused on nuclear energy policy.
- pvaldes 4y ago> They're convinced Chernobyl can happen again Chernobyl has happened each single year since 1986. Has been swallowing money each single year since 1986. No exceptions. I'm really convinced that the problem will be there still in 2023. And turning much worse is also a possibility because s*t happens in a war-zone.
- concordDance 4y agoNuclear power was ended in Germany for political reasons. The public has an incorrect idea of how dangerous nuclear power is and how dangerous nuclear waste is and it was easier for the politicians to go along with it for points than stand it's ground. If you're making policy based on scientifically inaccurate ideas then you aren't respecting the science.
- pydry 4y agoIn Germany the maximum insurance liability for nuclear disasters is $2.5 billion. In the US it's $0.35 billion. Fukushima cost $800 billion. This happened essentially because without a liability cap the entire insurance industry considers nuclear power to be ridiculously risky. So the government, who wanted to protect investors, stepped in. I feel like a lot of people who dont know this want to educate me about how safe nuclear power truly is.
- neuronexmachina 4y ago> In the US it's $0.35 billion. I was curious about this figure, found info here. Also, apparently the Price-Anderson Act which created the liability limit was passed in 1957, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that it no longer makes sense now that nuclear technology has matured: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n... > Over time, the "limit of liability" for a nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to more than $13 billion. > > Currently, owners of nuclear power plants pay an annual premium for $450 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor site (not per reactor). This primary, or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $450 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess, up to $131.056 million per reactor. With 95 reactors currently in the insurance pool, i this secondary tier of funds contains about $12.9 billion. Payouts in excess of 15 percent of these funds require a prioritization plan approved by a federal district court. If the court determines that public liability may exceed the maximum amount of financial protection available from the primary and secondary tiers, each licensee would be assessed a pro rata share of this excess not to exceed 5 percent of the maximum deferred premium ($131.056 million); approximately $6.553 million per reactor. If the second tier is depleted, Congress is committed to determine whether additional disaster relief is required.
- tb0ne 4y agoIt is stuff like people religiously dissmising you when you tell them that nuclear is nearly the safest power source in terms of deaths per TWh [1]. They don't base their opinion regarding safety on data, they base it on the feeling that they get from seeing large disasters and not seeing the countless deaths caused in silence, and they refuse to update their view even in the face of contradicting data. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- Krasnol 4y agoThose numbers are based upon flawed and selective numbers making them quite ridiculous for several reasons: For example: with Fukushima the nuclear bandwagon arguments that those deaths which actually occurred resulted from moving people to a safe area. As if not moving them would have been an option or if the movement would have happened without the accident. For Chernobyl it's even worse since there the bandwagon arguments with dead firefighters, ignoring all the "fallout" victims which to these days exist and lose years of life. Not even mentioning missing data: https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/groups/anthrotox-anthropology-of-toxicity-/2021.03.16/brown-2017.pdf https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/groups/anthrotox-... Besides that it is the same people who say that Germany could have less coal plants with nuclear running. Something which is also not true since the reason for keeping coal so long was not the lack of electrical power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structural_Change_and_Employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Growth,_Structur...
- tb0ne 4y agoUh, did you actually read the source I posted? For Fukushima for example, the deaths from evacuation ARE included in the death toll (the total number is estimated to be 2,314). You have a detailed article about the data here [1]. But I am open to change my mind. Can you give a source that compares the mortality rate of energy sources and that, in your opinion, better accounts for all deaths? What is the highest mortality rate for nuclear someone has every estimated? [1] https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
- Krasnol 4y agoIt has nothing to do with science. OP is just parroting a meme circulating in a certain group of people who didn't realise that nuclear is gone and has been replaced by renewables years ago. It goes with the meme that you glorify France while ignoring it's failures which are quite prominent these days just the same way he ignores the fact that the chancellor for the last 16 years was an actual physicist. This is the level of debate we currently have again here in Germany.
- BenoitP 4y ago> nuclear is gone and has been replaced by renewables years ago This only works because Germany is still burning ungodly amount of coal, to fill the gaps when there is no wind or sun (about 60% of the time) Is this the meme you're talking about? Maybe sources are memes too? What happens if you take coal away from here: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE
- thereddaikon 4y agoMany of the claims made by the anti-nuclear ground directly contradict established science.
- oldsecondhand 4y agoThe German greens were more against nuclear power than fossil. If you care about the environment that's a pretty irrational choice.
- q1w2 4y agoRussian influence operations at work. Russia has been promoting anti-nuclear sentiment in the West since the 1960s.