12 ms·

Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the article? The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposit

Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the article? The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposition to revert that. The plants were planned to shut down since a long time, there is a lot of unsolved issues around keeping them running, like fuel and personnel. The plants also would impact gas usage only by 1% and electricity isn't a great replacement short term for all the gas used. In hindsight I think the decision to get out of nuclear was wrong, especially before getting out of coal. But keeping the last 3 running for some more months isn't really a solution for anything.

baxtr 4y ago
They could have tried at least. It’s just not a clever thing to do from a communication perspective.
- arrrg 4y ago
  You are misjudging the mood regarding nuclear power in Germany completely. You would have to expend so much political capital to keep those running, it‘s simply not worth it. Not for the benefit they provide, not for any communication goals you might have.
  - rasz 4y ago
    It might take one cold winter to change their minds.
    - nathanaldensr 4y ago
      It appears that very well may happen. When the nature of the uncaring universe is made known to people, many delusions will be swept away.
- WJW 4y ago
  Then communicate better, like turbinerneiter just did. Something not making intuitive sense for the uninitiated does not suddenly make it a good idea.
  - baxtr 4y ago
    That’s a good point. That said I wasn’t convinced by the 1% argument. Europe needs all power it can scramble for the next 2 coming winters.
clemensley 4y ago
I wasn't summarizing the article, I was providing a source for my statement. It's irrational that Germany is shutting down secure and climate friendly power plants while Europe is in the midst of an energy crises and a war. The reason for the irrationality is that Germans (I'm one) do not want to admit that they've been wrong about nuclear energy for decades.
- _0w8t 4y ago
  The answer for the war is coal and this is exactly what Germany is doing. It is simpler and cheaper to run the existing coal plants at the full capacity or even increase it than try to maintain the nuclear plants long past the original design lifespan and that were planned to be stopped for years. In retrospect it would be better if Germany did not decide to shutdown the nuclear, but presently this is a rational decision.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  The problem with nuclear is simply that it is irrelevant to the current situation. Won’t add enough energy to the grid, won’t solve the problem of gas demand at all, so it really doesn’t matter if Germany was right or wrong about it.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    It very much matters over the timespan of several decades. That is enough time in which many more nuclear power plants could have been brought online. Just because Germany made the gross error of not building out enough nuclear power to provide for their needs doesn’t mean it is impossible.
    - jhgb 4y ago
      No, it doesn't. The nuclear plants were never a substitute for residential gas heaters and the chemical industry consuming copious amounts of natural gas. Any shortfall from the nuclear shutdown can be covered by the underutilized coal plants. It's temporarily inconvenient but doesn't necessitate gas imports in any way.
slenk 4y ago
I don't think there is any world where getting rid of nuclear power is better...it's one of the cleanest, least deadly forms of power generation.
- userbinator 4y ago
  The biggest concern is that when things go wrong with nuclear, they really go wrong.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources. Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day. Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m viewed from space: https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m
    - userbinator 4y ago
      A short immediate risk is called "danger". A long sustained risk is called "life".
otikik 4y ago
Maybe when winter comes, 1% will make all the difference. We will see

baxtr 4y ago

They could have tried at least. It’s just not a clever thing to do from a communication perspective.

arrrg 4y ago
You are misjudging the mood regarding nuclear power in Germany completely. You would have to expend so much political capital to keep those running, it‘s simply not worth it. Not for the benefit they provide, not for any communication goals you might have.
- rasz 4y ago
  It might take one cold winter to change their minds.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    It appears that very well may happen. When the nature of the uncaring universe is made known to people, many delusions will be swept away.
WJW 4y ago
Then communicate better, like turbinerneiter just did. Something not making intuitive sense for the uninitiated does not suddenly make it a good idea.
- baxtr 4y ago
  That’s a good point. That said I wasn’t convinced by the 1% argument. Europe needs all power it can scramble for the next 2 coming winters.

clemensley 4y ago

I wasn't summarizing the article, I was providing a source for my statement. It's irrational that Germany is shutting down secure and climate friendly power plants while Europe is in the midst of an energy crises and a war. The reason for the irrationality is that Germans (I'm one) do not want to admit that they've been wrong about nuclear energy for decades.

_0w8t 4y ago
The answer for the war is coal and this is exactly what Germany is doing. It is simpler and cheaper to run the existing coal plants at the full capacity or even increase it than try to maintain the nuclear plants long past the original design lifespan and that were planned to be stopped for years. In retrospect it would be better if Germany did not decide to shutdown the nuclear, but presently this is a rational decision.
ivan_gammel 4y ago
The problem with nuclear is simply that it is irrelevant to the current situation. Won’t add enough energy to the grid, won’t solve the problem of gas demand at all, so it really doesn’t matter if Germany was right or wrong about it.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  It very much matters over the timespan of several decades. That is enough time in which many more nuclear power plants could have been brought online. Just because Germany made the gross error of not building out enough nuclear power to provide for their needs doesn’t mean it is impossible.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    No, it doesn't. The nuclear plants were never a substitute for residential gas heaters and the chemical industry consuming copious amounts of natural gas. Any shortfall from the nuclear shutdown can be covered by the underutilized coal plants. It's temporarily inconvenient but doesn't necessitate gas imports in any way.

slenk 4y ago

I don't think there is any world where getting rid of nuclear power is better...it's one of the cleanest, least deadly forms of power generation.

userbinator 4y ago
The biggest concern is that when things go wrong with nuclear, they really go wrong.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources. Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day. Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m viewed from space: https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m
  - userbinator 4y ago
    A short immediate risk is called "danger". A long sustained risk is called "life".

otikik 4y ago

Maybe when winter comes, 1% will make all the difference. We will see