7 ms·

These texts implicitly calling for Germany to abandon it's policy of leaving nuclear energy in the dustbin of history are getting tiresome. It is as if the lite

These texts implicitly calling for Germany to abandon it's policy of leaving nuclear energy in the dustbin of history are getting tiresome. It is as if the literati don't realize that it is a lethally hazardous source of energy that has the potential to lay the continent barren, given a the right conditions. Conditions like coordinated terrorist attacks, natural disasters, technical mishaps. And like war. Now war in continental Europe has of course been unthinkable for a long time. Well think again. In spite of the obviously untenable situation in Zaporizhzhia playing out in real time right before our eyes we still have people calling for more nuclear. It's outrageous. So in my mind, Germany is doing the right thing. In spite of Russia doing their best to prove that Europe needs this vulnerability they are leading the way towards the new economy that spells self reliance and resilience. The type of centralized energy production that nuclear represents is a defense liability, in addition to a health and environmental hazard for thousands of years to come as far as we know now.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
Unless there are hard safety reasons it does not make any practical difference to Germany's policy of leaving nuclear energy whether they close their few remaining nuclear power plants now, next year, or in 2024. But it makes a big difference to energy production through this winter, in the middle of a big energy crisis. So IMHO, Germany is again putting ideological and domestic political concerns before realism and a pragmatic approach.
Bancakes 4y ago
It's nuclear or nothing at all. It's nuclear or upper middle class gets energy. It's nuclear or "stoneage-with-smartphones". It's nuclear or we need thousands of 24/7 on-call maintenance jobs for all the renewables, and the landfills they will produce.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Well, I suspect you just feel obliged to post hyperbole for some reason. But if you actually believe any of that then I hate to break it to you, you've been fooled in that case. None of your statements are true.
  - yabqk 4y ago
    Because talking about “laying the continent barren” was not hyperbole.
    - stareatgoats 4y ago
      I must assume you are uniformed about the effects of most or all of Europes nuclear reactors losing their cooling. The relative limited catastrophe in Chernobyl is still rendering wild game in Sweden unfit for human consumption. Maybe you weren't aware?
      - Bancakes 4y ago
        All the nuclear reactors losing their cooling is less likely than global thermonuclear war. Actually, one nuclear reactor in the middle of war losing its cooling and going off is less likely than global thermonuclear war. Source: recent events. Putin is out of control and has made numerous threats of global-scale retaliation. Zaporizhzhia NPP has made no threats, and is under control and ready to take offline.
      - Gud 4y ago
        What wild game is unfit for human consumption in Sweden because of Chernobyl?
        hnbad 4y ago
        Not the person you were asking but wild boars in Southern Germany are still considered unfit for human consumption because of soil contamination in forests.
        Gud 4y ago
        The reason I’m asking is because hunting wild game in Sweden is very common and the parent poster made it sound like the consequences of the radiation fallout is a lot worse than it actually is. Edit: It seems the case is similar in Sweden. Wild boar in the regions hit hardest by the fallout is not safe to eat. https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/press/nyheter/2021/35-ar-efter-tjernobyl--sparen-finns-kvar-men-suddas-sakta-ut/ https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/press/nyheter/2021/...
rogerkirkness 4y ago
Nuclear is probably the safest form of energy possible next to deep geothermal, if you include the damage done to humans involved in the production of solar panels. Germany is choosing to regress itself into a pre industrial society with no upside.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Well it is "probably safe" until some even greater catastrophe then the ones hitherto occurs, then it isn't probable any more. Nuclear has that potential, and if you deny that then you are either ill informed or dishonest. Deep geothermal is what will probably totally obliterate any lingering doubts about the blessings of nuclear, so I'm fairly optimistic about where this is heading.
  - koverstreet 4y ago
    Calling people names for disagreeing with you generally doesn't fly here, you need to justify your arguments. Nuclear has gotten safer over time, as the failure modes have become better understood, and it's always been considerably safer than fossil fuels. There simply isn't any justification for your wild fear mongering.
    - stareatgoats 4y ago
      Well, agree that name calling is not acceptable. But you know, another thing that doesn't fly is mischaracterizing someone's comments. If you mean my "ill informed or dishonest" remark qualifies, then I will dispute that. But I believe "wild fear mongering" fits the bill, but that wasn't my comment however.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    I think we have already faced the worst possible failure mode with Tsernobyl. That is the fuel going up in the air with burning material. Can't get any worse than that, and compared to produced electricity it resulted in not that many deaths.
- scantis 4y ago
danny_codes 4y ago
Dude what are you talking about? Nuclear power is the safest known form of energy, statistically speaking. Even the worst nuclear energy disasters in history killed like 50 people, whereas millions die from fossil fuel air pollution every year.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  see my answer to rogerkirkness
- hanche 4y ago
  Statistically speaking? I have read somewhere that you are more likely to be killed by a meteor impact than winning the jackpot in ⟨some lottery⟩. Statistically speaking, that is nonsense. Nobody is known to have been killed by meteor impact, but many people have won the jackpot. I don’t know if the claim is true or not, but if it is, it is because some possible meteor impacts could kill millions, possibly even billions. They are just too rare to show up in a statistically meaningful way yet (fortunately). I hope the relevance of this example to the discussion of nuclear safety is obvious. I believe the technical term is “long tails” (of a probability distribution). Long tails are notoriously difficult to reason about. This is not to say that I am absolutely opposed to nuclear power, but I don’t think the debate is easily settled one way or the other.
dTal 4y ago
You know what's vastly, profoundly worse for the environment than any nuclear accident? The fossil fuels that nuclear power could have replaced 50 years ago. No plausible amount of Chernobyls would have collapsed ocean phytoplankton levels, or destroyed the entire Great Barrier Reef.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Agreed we need to move off fossil fuels. Nuclear never had the potential to replace fossile fuels though, not 50 years ago, and not now IMO. Fossil fuels can only be replaced now with recent advances in electrification of transport and industry, and a general awareness about the climate impact that the burning fossil fuels has. The question is where do we get the energy to power this electrification? Through a potentially hazardous, expensive technology like nuclear or through cheap, safe and environmentally friendly, sustainable sources like sun, wind, wave and deep geothermal? The answer will become evident in the next decades, but I know what I'm rooting for at least. And oh, you might like to hear that the entire Great Barrier Reef is not really destroyed, yet. But we need to act soon, in the right direction.
  - Gud 4y ago
    Why can't we get the energy from all these sources? Investing in solar, wind, nuclear etc. are not mutually exclusive.
    - stareatgoats 4y ago
      Because nuclear is hazardous, and because of that, also vastly more expensive. The people here that claim it isn't a patently dangerous source of energy are not being honest IMO, maybe not even to themselves.
      - Gud 4y ago
        It is not so dangerous though, it’s one of the safest energy sources together with wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

mytailorisrich 4y ago

Unless there are hard safety reasons it does not make any practical difference to Germany's policy of leaving nuclear energy whether they close their few remaining nuclear power plants now, next year, or in 2024. But it makes a big difference to energy production through this winter, in the middle of a big energy crisis. So IMHO, Germany is again putting ideological and domestic political concerns before realism and a pragmatic approach.

Bancakes 4y ago

It's nuclear or nothing at all. It's nuclear or upper middle class gets energy. It's nuclear or "stoneage-with-smartphones". It's nuclear or we need thousands of 24/7 on-call maintenance jobs for all the renewables, and the landfills they will produce.

stareatgoats 4y ago
Well, I suspect you just feel obliged to post hyperbole for some reason. But if you actually believe any of that then I hate to break it to you, you've been fooled in that case. None of your statements are true.
- yabqk 4y ago
  Because talking about “laying the continent barren” was not hyperbole.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    I must assume you are uniformed about the effects of most or all of Europes nuclear reactors losing their cooling. The relative limited catastrophe in Chernobyl is still rendering wild game in Sweden unfit for human consumption. Maybe you weren't aware?
    - Bancakes 4y ago
      All the nuclear reactors losing their cooling is less likely than global thermonuclear war. Actually, one nuclear reactor in the middle of war losing its cooling and going off is less likely than global thermonuclear war. Source: recent events. Putin is out of control and has made numerous threats of global-scale retaliation. Zaporizhzhia NPP has made no threats, and is under control and ready to take offline.
    - Gud 4y ago
      What wild game is unfit for human consumption in Sweden because of Chernobyl?
      - hnbad 4y ago
        Not the person you were asking but wild boars in Southern Germany are still considered unfit for human consumption because of soil contamination in forests.
        Gud 4y ago
        The reason I’m asking is because hunting wild game in Sweden is very common and the parent poster made it sound like the consequences of the radiation fallout is a lot worse than it actually is. Edit: It seems the case is similar in Sweden. Wild boar in the regions hit hardest by the fallout is not safe to eat. https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/press/nyheter/2021/35-ar-efter-tjernobyl--sparen-finns-kvar-men-suddas-sakta-ut/ https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/press/nyheter/2021/...

rogerkirkness 4y ago

Nuclear is probably the safest form of energy possible next to deep geothermal, if you include the damage done to humans involved in the production of solar panels. Germany is choosing to regress itself into a pre industrial society with no upside.

stareatgoats 4y ago
Well it is "probably safe" until some even greater catastrophe then the ones hitherto occurs, then it isn't probable any more. Nuclear has that potential, and if you deny that then you are either ill informed or dishonest. Deep geothermal is what will probably totally obliterate any lingering doubts about the blessings of nuclear, so I'm fairly optimistic about where this is heading.
- koverstreet 4y ago
  Calling people names for disagreeing with you generally doesn't fly here, you need to justify your arguments. Nuclear has gotten safer over time, as the failure modes have become better understood, and it's always been considerably safer than fossil fuels. There simply isn't any justification for your wild fear mongering.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    Well, agree that name calling is not acceptable. But you know, another thing that doesn't fly is mischaracterizing someone's comments. If you mean my "ill informed or dishonest" remark qualifies, then I will dispute that. But I believe "wild fear mongering" fits the bill, but that wasn't my comment however.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I think we have already faced the worst possible failure mode with Tsernobyl. That is the fuel going up in the air with burning material. Can't get any worse than that, and compared to produced electricity it resulted in not that many deaths.
scantis 4y ago

danny_codes 4y ago

Dude what are you talking about? Nuclear power is the safest known form of energy, statistically speaking. Even the worst nuclear energy disasters in history killed like 50 people, whereas millions die from fossil fuel air pollution every year.

stareatgoats 4y ago
see my answer to rogerkirkness
hanche 4y ago
Statistically speaking? I have read somewhere that you are more likely to be killed by a meteor impact than winning the jackpot in ⟨some lottery⟩. Statistically speaking, that is nonsense. Nobody is known to have been killed by meteor impact, but many people have won the jackpot. I don’t know if the claim is true or not, but if it is, it is because some possible meteor impacts could kill millions, possibly even billions. They are just too rare to show up in a statistically meaningful way yet (fortunately). I hope the relevance of this example to the discussion of nuclear safety is obvious. I believe the technical term is “long tails” (of a probability distribution). Long tails are notoriously difficult to reason about. This is not to say that I am absolutely opposed to nuclear power, but I don’t think the debate is easily settled one way or the other.

dTal 4y ago

You know what's vastly, profoundly worse for the environment than any nuclear accident? The fossil fuels that nuclear power could have replaced 50 years ago. No plausible amount of Chernobyls would have collapsed ocean phytoplankton levels, or destroyed the entire Great Barrier Reef.

stareatgoats 4y ago
Agreed we need to move off fossil fuels. Nuclear never had the potential to replace fossile fuels though, not 50 years ago, and not now IMO. Fossil fuels can only be replaced now with recent advances in electrification of transport and industry, and a general awareness about the climate impact that the burning fossil fuels has. The question is where do we get the energy to power this electrification? Through a potentially hazardous, expensive technology like nuclear or through cheap, safe and environmentally friendly, sustainable sources like sun, wind, wave and deep geothermal? The answer will become evident in the next decades, but I know what I'm rooting for at least. And oh, you might like to hear that the entire Great Barrier Reef is not really destroyed, yet. But we need to act soon, in the right direction.
- Gud 4y ago
  Why can't we get the energy from all these sources? Investing in solar, wind, nuclear etc. are not mutually exclusive.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    Because nuclear is hazardous, and because of that, also vastly more expensive. The people here that claim it isn't a patently dangerous source of energy are not being honest IMO, maybe not even to themselves.
    - Gud 4y ago
      It is not so dangerous though, it’s one of the safest energy sources together with wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy