24 ms·

Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

310 points by ulnarkressty 4y ago

rfool 4y ago
rfool 4y ago
IMHO totally unnecessary. Nuclear energy is superfluous, at least in Germany. https://www.app.electricitymaps.com https://www.app.electricitymaps.com
- asdff 4y ago
  How is it superfluous when half of Germany according to that source is powered by coal or gas (mostly coal)?
- lm28469 4y ago
  They're the second largest electricity importer of Europe. They're pulling the same shit as Belgium, shutting down their nuclear power plants and importing from France. Guess what France uses to generate electricity ?
dependsontheq 4y ago
While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the debate another spin „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I still thank shutting them off is wrong but I think there’s a lot of history in that decision. And it’s much more history than one party deciding that.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  lots of things are measurable, but did cancer and other radiation related diseases spike in Germany or not?
- cypress66 4y ago
  I'm sure your science teacher can also measure air pollution in his garden.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    That's not a way to make people comfortable with radiation, it's a way to make people uncomfortable with air pollution.
    - drekipus 4y ago
      Good. People should be uncomfortable with air pollution.
- naasking 4y ago
  Burning coal releases more airborne radioactive waste in a short time than a nuclear plant does over its whole lifetime. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
  - felixfbecker 4y ago
    A nuclear plant that doesn't explode, that is. Pretty sure Tschernobyl released more radiation than a coal plant over its lifetime. Probably more than all coal plants in Germany in their lifetime combined.
    - thescriptkiddie 4y ago
      I was going to reply that that has only happened literally twice ever, but decided to fact check that first. Apparently small steam and hydrogen explosions happened a whole lot at nuclear reactors in the 1950s and 60s.
    - naasking 4y ago
      And new reactor designs are meltdown proof, so what's the problem exactly?
      - jhrmnn 4y ago
        I think the fear of black swans, that is, unknown risks. I think most people don’t understand that the experts can really rule out something like a meltdown in modern reactors
      - andirk 4y ago
        Can you cite your claim? Meltdown-proof? So a huge earthquake and tsunami won't cause nuclear waste leaks in the slightest? Nothing will?
        naasking 4y ago
        I'll give an example of molten salt reactors [1]; other designs have different but comparable safety properties. The nuclear fuel is suspended in a molten salt. If the reactor is breached, you'll have what's effectively a contained chemical spill that has a very limited spread. Current water reactors trigger a steam explosion that spews out radiation into the atmosphere, which is why it's so catastrophic. If you get a runaway reaction, it has a fail-safe described in the article that drains the reactor into containment vessels underground. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/04/166330/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactors-get-a-safety-check-in-europe/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/04/166330/meltdown-...
- plextoria 4y ago
  This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far about Germany’s position on nuclear. It is based much more on emotions than on rational arguments.
  - dorgo 4y ago
    Not that there is a lack of rational arguments against nuclear... But climate change may overrule them all.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Or would, if solar and wind werent 5x cheaper per unit of power and 2x cheaper when combined with pumped storage.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Part of it is emotional, but so is the argument for it. It is simply too expensive compared to other forms of energy generation. And yes, you still have the waste.
- pelasaco 4y ago
  unnecessary german angst. Just check the map https://www.wano.info/members/wano-world-map https://www.wano.info/members/wano-world-map. We are surrounded by atomic power plants. Switzerland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Czech republic..almost all of them are situated in the german borders.
  - mk89 4y ago
    Indeed, I just looked it up: https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/nuclear-power-plants-in-europe/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/nuclear-power-plants-in... For God's sake, France has 56 power plants. What are we talking about....
  - mousetree 4y ago
    What do you mean they are situated in Germany borders? You mean other countries operate their nuclear plants within Germany? I clicked on a few that were marked Paris in that map (Neckarwestheim, Philippsburg, Gundremmingen) and they all very much seem to be German owned and operated. What am I missing? Would be very suprised to hear otherwise.
    - andreasha 4y ago
      Well after Unipers bailout by Germany (99% ownership) and Unipers majority ownership of one nuclear power plant in Sweden (minority in the other two).
  - andreasha 4y ago
    Denmark doesn't have any and five of eight reactors on that map of south of Sweden has closed, some soon almost two decades ago.
- worldvoyageur 4y ago
  When Chernobyl happened I was a physics undergrad in Kingston, Ontario, Canada and was spending the summer term on campus. We (the grad students really) went up to the roof of the physics building and started measuring for the radiation. There was much rejoicing when it turned up, which as I imperfectly remember was about two weeks after the incident. Which is to say, that the radiation could be measured is different from saying that the radiation represented a significant health risk.
  - this_user 4y ago
    Not all of us have the luxury of having more than 7000 km between us and the next nuclear accident, though. But I can send you some mushrooms from the forests of southern Germany if you would like to explore the health risks further.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      >"But I can send you some mushrooms from the forests of southern Germany if you would like to explore the health risks further." Sounds like the GP would receive mushrooms that have elevated levels of radionuclides that are within the legal limit of what is considered safe to consume. "Around 95% of wild mushroom samples collected in Germany in the last six years still showed radioactive contamination from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, albeit not above legal limits, the German food safety regulator said on Friday." [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/three-decades-german-mushrooms-still-show-imprint-chernobyl-2021-10-08/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/three-decades-g...
      - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        It's tree moss that is the larger risk apparently. It 'breathes' particles and keeps them. Wild boar love it; you shoot a wild boar, you have to get it tested with a Geiger counter to make sure it's safe. Like mercury in salmon, boar are a concentrator for fallout!
    - ta123456789 4y ago
- Cwizard 4y ago
  > „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Which are essentially non-existent in Germany? In my opinion Fukushima should be an argument _for_ nuclear power. The death toll was really low, roughly 2000, and many of those death were caused by the evacuation rather than radiation. The death toll of the tsunami/earthquake was 15000 according to wikipedia. What should really put this into perspective is that air pollutions is estimated to kill millions every year. And all of this is with reactors that are really old. If we would put the same amount of engineering resources into nuclear as we put into chips I am sure the number of deaths would go down a few order of magnitudes.
  - mxscho 4y ago
    > I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? I think the argument would be that the risk wasn't mitigated although it should've been known. There may be other known risks as well.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Chernobyl has often been characterized as the result of a corrupt and incompetent late-stage USSR, whereas post-WWII Japan is seen as a generally well-run country. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just trying to describe public opinion.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      You’re not countering the implicit argument that Germany won’t have a problem with earthquakes ruining their nuclear powerplants. Germany is also a “well-run country” if you want to run with the old anti-Soviet argument.
      - johannes1234321 4y ago
        It's not fully an objective argument, butnan emotional. "Even Japan can't run them safely!" Where Japan is known for its precision and strict following of rules (perception!) Yes, rationally the maths is a lot different, but countering emotions with facts is hard. (And then consider facts like long term deposition of nuclear waste etc.)
- suction 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nimbius 4y ago
  >If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can While I agree the German position is more complex, the conclusion is reducto ad absurdum given the Fukushima reactor meltdown is an extraordinarily complex issue without a single definitive root cause which could be attributed to simple human control. Any human control is predicated and annotated by known assumptions and performance envelopes. Failure modes can be predicted, past performance can be analyzed and conclusions can be drawn using scientific knowledge and evidence for the basis of ones systems of control, be they industrial or environmental. Failure events or conditions, although regretful, are very important as they permit us to learn, to adapt, to grow and to change in response to events and conditions as they change or evolve over time. Because Japan is a brave, science minded nation, it hasnt eschewed the atom even in the face of this egregious misfortune. The initial German response to the accident could best be compared to that of a child: reactionary, undisciplined, haphazard and deleterious. Im glad to learn more sensible minds have prevailed and reconsidered nuclear power as a sustainable partner, albeit somewhat irked to see its only real commitment in this case is the overwhelming demand for energy independence amidst global conflict.
  - cedilla 4y ago
    ...you do understand that your "sensible" minds only decided to keep three reactors online for six months, right? It seems like argument you have is that the "sensible" minds are agreeing with you, and a whole litany of name-calling for the people who advocated abandoning nuclear - who are largely the exact same people by the way.
- jimlongton 4y ago
  > „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“ Nuclear technology is risky but Fukushima isn't a good reflection of what modern nuclear power plants can accomplish. The reactors at Fukushima were designed half a century ago and were known to be flawed 35 years before the accident happened [1]. It's ironic that the plant was running longer than was originally planned in part because of Green opposition to newer power plants. [1] https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reactor-flaws-were-predicted-%E2%80%93-35-years-ago/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reactor-flaws...
- peaslock 4y ago
  It is measurable, but not harmful to a meaningful extent. There are lots of sources of low-dose radiation in the natural human/primate/.../mammalian environment.
  - godelski 4y ago
    For what it is worth, I did an estimate on here awhile ago (welcome to search my history) where IIRC you had to eat several kilos of boar and mushrooms every day to approach limits for radiation workers (which has a large safety margin). I think many people forget that we are really good at detecting radiation. This is mostly due to Cold War era fear and so a lot of research got put into this and we have cheap and sensitive devices. Cheap enough that there are large public networks of radiation monitoring set up by citizens. Not too dissimilar from citizen weather projects.
- heisig 4y ago
  Emotions certainly played a major role when Germany decided to phase out nuclear in 2011, and the execution and timeline of that phase-out were poor. But that doesn't mean Germans haven't pondered seriously about this topic in the meantime. And the result is that, apart from this band-aid solution for the current winter, Germany will still phase out nuclear. Let me try to summarize the most important points I know of: - Cost. Nuclear energy is expensive energy. It just happened to be cheaper than solar and wind energy a decade ago. But the cost of renewables went down spectacularly, and the cost of nuclear went up at the same time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity). So why invest in nuclear energy when we could have more low-carbon energy for the same price elsewhere? - Subsidies. So far, all nuclear power plants have been heavily subsidized. There isn't a single country where the full cost of decommissioning and permanent storage of radioactive material is properly taken into account. And there is no power plant with a full insurance, so those risks are carried by the public. Once we eliminate these subsidies, the cost of nuclear grows even further. - Reliability. Some people dislike renewables because there are times with no wind and no sunshine. But they forget that wind and sunshine are relatively predictable and have worst-case bounds. So investing into storage and the electricity grid makes renewables highly reliable. Now look at nuclear. The worst case scenario is roughly what just happened in France: you discover a problem that affects an entire generation of power plants, and all of them have to be taken offline until the problem is resolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...). Without its European neighbors, France would be in deep trouble. If we take precautions against this risk, the cost of nuclear grows even further. - Inflexibility. Nuclear power plants need a high uptime to amortize their construction cost. But once they operate in a grid with a substantial amount of renewables, they are displaced more and more and the cost per unit of energy grows even further. - War. The Russian army has recently captured a Ukrainian nuclear power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_at_the_Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_at_the_Zaporizhzhia_Nuc...). The plant is now used to store military equipment, the employees are bullied or even tortured, and all pillars of nuclear safety are being violated. There are credible approaches how we can build a power plant that resists human stupidity or a natural disaster, but there is no way we can build a power plant that is unconditionally safe in a war zone. - Nuclear Proliferation. Once the know-how and the infrastructure for handling fissionable material is in place, even if only for civilian purposes, there is a much stronger incentive to also look into military use. And the last thing our planet needs is more nuclear weapons. Given these points, the current German position seems quite sensible and I wonder why some other nations are suddenly so eager to build new nuclear power plants.
- yodelshady 4y ago
  The forests near mine and just about everywhere else on the entire planet have elevated levels of BEING ON GODDAMNED FIRE thanks to coal-burners. No there's not history. There's not emotions. There's god-damned stupidity and a refusal to evaluate risk at the top level of government, that has condemned hundred of millions. I've lived near irradiated areas too. There was zero justification for this.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear How about not phasing it out at all. > The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden Yeah you can also measure the output form coal plants. Tschernobyl killed either literally or basically nobody in German, and hardly hurt anybody. It was basically nonsense, because of political reasons rules were adopted based on totally fraudulent science and then these rules were used in endless scare mongering campaigns and misinformation campaigns. But at some point you have to stop with pure emotional responses and endless fear-mongering and actually look at things rationally.
- thisarticle 4y ago
  Wait until you see how much damage coal does to your body.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > Fukushima gave the debate another spin „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. That's an understandable reaction. But a better reaction would have been "what lessons did we learn?". After the 2008 financial crisis, the financial regulators around the world gathered at the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit [1] to see what can be done to improve the resiliency of the global financial markets. They came up with a Statement [2]. Later on, the Basel Committee ironed out some details, and the national regulators other details, and the outcome was a long string of financial reforms known collectively as Basel III. This was a monumental achievement (well, it's still work in progress, but it's about 80-90% done). Of course, for many professionals in the financial markets it felt more like a curse than a blessing. But we have been trough the March 2020 financial panic, and the financial system coped quite well. In the nuclear regulatory space, there are so many regulators around the world. The NRC for sure, but also the nuclear regulators in Canada, the UK, France and Finland. One can add South Korea to the list and probably a few more countries. I'm sure they are exchanging notes. Overall, I think they have probably a huge amount of experience, and they have met 99.999% of the edge cases for classical (pressurized and boiling water) reactors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G20_Pittsburgh_summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G20_Pittsburgh_summit [2] http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925.html http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III
  - hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
    "What lessons did we learn?" is an excellent question, but it's the reaction of a seasoned professional. The reason we have to teach that outlook to new grads is people don't think that way by default. It's unrealistic to expect that reaction from the general populace.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Can you quantify "elevated"? How does it compare to living in Denver, Colorado, vs living in Frankfurt? (Denver is at a higher altitude and also in a region of slightly radioactive rocks.) How does it compare to the effects of 30,000 km of flying?
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  > was measurable in Germany It still is measurable. Only 5% of the reactor mass managed to escape into the environment. There are effective safety mechanisms but like in Fukushima they are subject to economic realities. The luck here was that water is a very good radiation absorber. It will still go into the food chain and increase risks. Perhaps not by much if we are lucky. This is politics and letting them run is populism in my opinion. They won't run longer than to their next security inspection. Even the owners were reluctant because you have to reorganize the demolition, which isn't trivial for NPP. Nuclear can be a source of energy, but the way it is currently hailed as a solution for climate change should only really convince filthy peasants. Emotional is as much a reluctance to consider better options because it is expensive and there are a lot of unsolved problems. Beginning from mining Uranium to getting rid of the waste permanently.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. Their coal power plants made you breath more radioactive particles than Chernobyl
- fartsucker69 4y ago
  aren't people here supposed to be educated? there have been many studies on this. tschernobyl has had no measurable impact on any health related metrics you could come up with in countries outside the ukraine. even directly at tschernobyl the long lasting impact was minimal and most related deaths were an effect of accute exposure.
lizardactivist 4y ago
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
Finally! Everybody was telling them to do so, it was very hard to understand why they would do the opposite. Personally I'm very happy reason hasn't lost its way.
- asdff 4y ago
  Its pretty easy to understand why they would do the opposite: there is money invested in favor of the opposite that exerts political influence.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Narretz 4y ago
What's noteworthy is that Kanzler Scholz basically told his ministers that all 3 plants will stay open and the ministers have to organize it. That's very unusual. The coalition was actually still arguing about this, so some people, especially in the Green party are going to be pissed. But at least they now have theoretically more time to deal with other pressing issues instead of bickering about a few months more run time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway221017 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jacooper 4y ago
Honestly the way Germany has handled this crisis, shows how crappy the greens are.
HyperSane 4y ago
https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/electricity-prices-germany-ranked-amongst-highest-globally https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/electri...
exabrial 4y ago
Awesome. Next step: Build new ones.
DisjointedHunt 4y ago
They've only delayed it until its politically easier to shut it down. The German greens' leader has backed running Coal plants as an alternative[1] The whole political position of this party rests on their fanatic opposition to Nuclear power. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energy/germany-russia-gas-supplies-winter-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energy/germany-russia-gas...
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  Mark Nelson, from Radiant Energy Group, thinks otherwise. https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1582050941682954240 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1582050941682954240 quote: > For all those commenting "only until April 2023": > No utility will decommission a nuclear plant knowing this kind of reversal is possible even with Greens still in government occupying key posts. > They will not even mothball the plants. They'll just sit and wait for elections.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  >The whole political position of this party rests on their fanatic opposition to Nuclear power. Btw if anyone thinks this is exaggeration, it's not. They are evil fanatics: https://twitter.com/giuliasaudelli/status/1580973130990125056 https://twitter.com/giuliasaudelli/status/158097313099012505... >"Nuclear power and fossil fuels brought us here. They caused this crisis, they are not the solution." >Strong and at times emotional speech by Robert Habeck, after weeks under pressure. Defending his actions in government, but standing by Green values. He got a standing ovation. Reality: the Greens and their allies spent half a trillion USD on the "energy transition" and turned off perfectly good nuclear reactors. Result: energy shortages and diplomatic submission to Russia. And now they blame nuclear for it. If they had spent that half a trillion on new nuclear reactors, Germany would be an energy superpower. As it stands, they're having to burn coal and wood to get through the winter.
  - Isolus 4y ago
    > Reality: the Greens and their allies spent half a trillion USD on the "energy transition" and turned off perfectly good nuclear reactors. Result: energy shortages and diplomatic submission to Russia. Um no. Renewable energy is now actually cheaper than nuclear energy. You could build renewable energy + storage within the same range of cost. The problem is the former government shut down nuclear power plants and then did exactly nothing. The nuclear power plants aren't perfectly good. They are very old and would need a lot of investment if run for more than a couple of month. And germany isn't even near electric energy shortages. It's currently supplying france with a lot of energy. If electric heating were used everywhere from now on, there would be an electricity problem. But for that the electric heaters are missing.
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Good. Germany was facing a cold winter, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely. Who in their right mind would decom any type of energy that could help stave off pain for their citizenship - especially one that has no carbon footprint.
- V__ 4y ago
  Whether one is pro nuclear or not, I think it makes sense to look at the specific situation at hand. Was it a mistake to shut down all nuclear reactors while not pushing for more renewables and replacing all gas and coal plants first? I think so. Should the last three remaining nuclear plants be kept online? I don't think so. Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuclear can reduce gas consumption. However, only about 10% of gas (see edit) is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. In a worst-case scenario, those nuclear power plants can help stabilize the grid, but they are not needed in general. The downside is, that they were already in the process of being shut down. They now need to undergo new safety checks, the fuel rods are nearly spend and this will cost 100 millions. Money which can be spent better. This winter also isn't predicted to be particularly cold, so the full gas storages in combination with the soon opening LNG-terminals will suffice. EDIT: I made a mistake, 10% of electricity is gas.
  - xg15 4y ago
    > Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuclear can reduce gas consumption. However, only about 10% of gas is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. In a worst-case scenario, those nuclear power plants can help stabilize the grid, but they are not needed in general. A number of cities also use district heating, where the heat is taken directly from the cooling circuits of nearby power stations. No idea what percentage of total heating this is and if nuclear plants are involved here, but this would be another way how those plants could (theoretically) contribute to heating.
    - 4y ago
clemensley 4y ago
Finally. Opposition to nuclear is beyond unreasonable. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- legulere 4y ago
  That statistic is only about deaths. You still have to deal with nuclear accidents leading to evacuation of huge areas happening once around every 30 years (unknown unknowns and what not). Germany has a high population density. Such a catastrophe happening in Germany would lead to millions getting evacuated. Another issue is the safe disposal of nuclear waste. It might seem like a low risk, but over the huge timespan nuclear waste needs to be safeguarded that risk adds up. Of course there's also other sources of nuclear waste, but it's best to keep the amounts low. Last, nuclear currently in the west runs into economic problems. New reactors are plagued by enormous cost overruns and struggle to compete with renewables. But also old reactors are starting to become prohibitively expensive to keep running.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Nuclear waste is disposed of by being buried underground in a region with impermeable bedrock. Short of deliberate excavation, or a direct meteor impact, there is no scenario in which this waste gets brought back to the surface.
  - Cwizard 4y ago
    I'd much rather be evacuated (and live) than die from air pollution.
  - asdff 4y ago
    That's a good point, maybe we should also be evacuating huge areas around dirty power plants considering we are aware of the harm they cause to the nearby population? Nuclear waste is a non issue. If you want to make it perfectly safe and untouchable to most bad actors, you can always dump it into a trench in the ocean. The radioactivity will not penetrate far through ocean water and will be less than other sources of radiation in the ocean today. The only reason why we do things like keep it stored on site, is because its still useful material that can be used in future reaction designs, and throwing it into the sea would be a waste of resources we worked hard to extract from the earth in the first place. I also have not seen any examples in history of people taking waste from a powerplant and turning that into a weapon against other people. So far in history, the only time nuclear weaponry has been used against humans was when it was built by an American arms factory, which is pretty remarkable considering the inherent violence that many of the elite of our species rely upon to maintain their power.
tonymet 4y ago
maliker 4y ago
In case anyone was curious, Germany used to get 25% of its generation from nuclear (now more like 10%), and they had as many as 17 nuclear reactors as of 2010. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Good thing they exported 15% of their domestic energy production to the friendly state of Russia - in the form of natural gas imports ($20B per year). What could possibly go wrong?
  - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
    96% of european uranium demand is met by imports, 4% is domestic, and 20% are imported from russia. Source: Euratom Supply Agency - Annual Report 2021 - Page 14 https://euratom-supply.ec.europa.eu/publications/esa-annual-reports_en https://euratom-supply.ec.europa.eu/publications/esa-annual-... Also look at page 26ff which states that it would take years to replace current dependency on russia, not only in raw ressources, but also enrichment and recycling services.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      You can import 100% of Uranium from actual allies without problem.
      - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
        the linked Euroatom Supply Agency Report says otherwise. But it's besides the point anyway: the grandparent argued that it is stupid to import 15% energy
        onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        Russia is 19% of your Uranium imports. Larger for natural gas. You can easily source that 19% from Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia, and the US instead of Russia.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
namuol 4y ago
State-sponsored nuclear fear-mongering is likely to accelerate dramatically online in the coming years. Will it be the right that goes anti-nuclear this time? Hopefully not.

310 points by ulnarkressty 4y ago

IMHO totally unnecessary. Nuclear energy is superfluous, at least in Germany. https://www.app.electricitymaps.com https://www.app.electricitymaps.com

asdff 4y ago
How is it superfluous when half of Germany according to that source is powered by coal or gas (mostly coal)?
lm28469 4y ago
They're the second largest electricity importer of Europe. They're pulling the same shit as Belgium, shutting down their nuclear power plants and importing from France. Guess what France uses to generate electricity ?

dependsontheq 4y ago

While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the debate another spin „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I still thank shutting them off is wrong but I think there’s a lot of history in that decision. And it’s much more history than one party deciding that.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
lots of things are measurable, but did cancer and other radiation related diseases spike in Germany or not?
cypress66 4y ago
I'm sure your science teacher can also measure air pollution in his garden.
- ben_w 4y ago
  That's not a way to make people comfortable with radiation, it's a way to make people uncomfortable with air pollution.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    Good. People should be uncomfortable with air pollution.
naasking 4y ago
Burning coal releases more airborne radioactive waste in a short time than a nuclear plant does over its whole lifetime. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- felixfbecker 4y ago
  A nuclear plant that doesn't explode, that is. Pretty sure Tschernobyl released more radiation than a coal plant over its lifetime. Probably more than all coal plants in Germany in their lifetime combined.
  - thescriptkiddie 4y ago
    I was going to reply that that has only happened literally twice ever, but decided to fact check that first. Apparently small steam and hydrogen explosions happened a whole lot at nuclear reactors in the 1950s and 60s.
  - naasking 4y ago
    And new reactor designs are meltdown proof, so what's the problem exactly?
    - jhrmnn 4y ago
      I think the fear of black swans, that is, unknown risks. I think most people don’t understand that the experts can really rule out something like a meltdown in modern reactors
    - andirk 4y ago
      Can you cite your claim? Meltdown-proof? So a huge earthquake and tsunami won't cause nuclear waste leaks in the slightest? Nothing will?
      - naasking 4y ago
        I'll give an example of molten salt reactors [1]; other designs have different but comparable safety properties. The nuclear fuel is suspended in a molten salt. If the reactor is breached, you'll have what's effectively a contained chemical spill that has a very limited spread. Current water reactors trigger a steam explosion that spews out radiation into the atmosphere, which is why it's so catastrophic. If you get a runaway reaction, it has a fail-safe described in the article that drains the reactor into containment vessels underground. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/04/166330/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactors-get-a-safety-check-in-europe/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/04/166330/meltdown-...
plextoria 4y ago
This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far about Germany’s position on nuclear. It is based much more on emotions than on rational arguments.
- dorgo 4y ago
  Not that there is a lack of rational arguments against nuclear... But climate change may overrule them all.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Or would, if solar and wind werent 5x cheaper per unit of power and 2x cheaper when combined with pumped storage.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Part of it is emotional, but so is the argument for it. It is simply too expensive compared to other forms of energy generation. And yes, you still have the waste.
pelasaco 4y ago
unnecessary german angst. Just check the map https://www.wano.info/members/wano-world-map https://www.wano.info/members/wano-world-map. We are surrounded by atomic power plants. Switzerland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Czech republic..almost all of them are situated in the german borders.
- mk89 4y ago
  Indeed, I just looked it up: https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/nuclear-power-plants-in-europe/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/nuclear-power-plants-in... For God's sake, France has 56 power plants. What are we talking about....
- mousetree 4y ago
  What do you mean they are situated in Germany borders? You mean other countries operate their nuclear plants within Germany? I clicked on a few that were marked Paris in that map (Neckarwestheim, Philippsburg, Gundremmingen) and they all very much seem to be German owned and operated. What am I missing? Would be very suprised to hear otherwise.
  - andreasha 4y ago
    Well after Unipers bailout by Germany (99% ownership) and Unipers majority ownership of one nuclear power plant in Sweden (minority in the other two).
- andreasha 4y ago
  Denmark doesn't have any and five of eight reactors on that map of south of Sweden has closed, some soon almost two decades ago.
worldvoyageur 4y ago
When Chernobyl happened I was a physics undergrad in Kingston, Ontario, Canada and was spending the summer term on campus. We (the grad students really) went up to the roof of the physics building and started measuring for the radiation. There was much rejoicing when it turned up, which as I imperfectly remember was about two weeks after the incident. Which is to say, that the radiation could be measured is different from saying that the radiation represented a significant health risk.
- this_user 4y ago
  Not all of us have the luxury of having more than 7000 km between us and the next nuclear accident, though. But I can send you some mushrooms from the forests of southern Germany if you would like to explore the health risks further.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    >"But I can send you some mushrooms from the forests of southern Germany if you would like to explore the health risks further." Sounds like the GP would receive mushrooms that have elevated levels of radionuclides that are within the legal limit of what is considered safe to consume. "Around 95% of wild mushroom samples collected in Germany in the last six years still showed radioactive contamination from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, albeit not above legal limits, the German food safety regulator said on Friday." [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/three-decades-german-mushrooms-still-show-imprint-chernobyl-2021-10-08/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/three-decades-g...
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
      It's tree moss that is the larger risk apparently. It 'breathes' particles and keeps them. Wild boar love it; you shoot a wild boar, you have to get it tested with a Geiger counter to make sure it's safe. Like mercury in salmon, boar are a concentrator for fallout!
  - ta123456789 4y ago
Cwizard 4y ago
> „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Which are essentially non-existent in Germany? In my opinion Fukushima should be an argument _for_ nuclear power. The death toll was really low, roughly 2000, and many of those death were caused by the evacuation rather than radiation. The death toll of the tsunami/earthquake was 15000 according to wikipedia. What should really put this into perspective is that air pollutions is estimated to kill millions every year. And all of this is with reactors that are really old. If we would put the same amount of engineering resources into nuclear as we put into chips I am sure the number of deaths would go down a few order of magnitudes.
- mxscho 4y ago
  > I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? I think the argument would be that the risk wasn't mitigated although it should've been known. There may be other known risks as well.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Chernobyl has often been characterized as the result of a corrupt and incompetent late-stage USSR, whereas post-WWII Japan is seen as a generally well-run country. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just trying to describe public opinion.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    You’re not countering the implicit argument that Germany won’t have a problem with earthquakes ruining their nuclear powerplants. Germany is also a “well-run country” if you want to run with the old anti-Soviet argument.
    - johannes1234321 4y ago
      It's not fully an objective argument, butnan emotional. "Even Japan can't run them safely!" Where Japan is known for its precision and strict following of rules (perception!) Yes, rationally the maths is a lot different, but countering emotions with facts is hard. (And then consider facts like long term deposition of nuclear waste etc.)
suction 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nimbius 4y ago
>If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can While I agree the German position is more complex, the conclusion is reducto ad absurdum given the Fukushima reactor meltdown is an extraordinarily complex issue without a single definitive root cause which could be attributed to simple human control. Any human control is predicated and annotated by known assumptions and performance envelopes. Failure modes can be predicted, past performance can be analyzed and conclusions can be drawn using scientific knowledge and evidence for the basis of ones systems of control, be they industrial or environmental. Failure events or conditions, although regretful, are very important as they permit us to learn, to adapt, to grow and to change in response to events and conditions as they change or evolve over time. Because Japan is a brave, science minded nation, it hasnt eschewed the atom even in the face of this egregious misfortune. The initial German response to the accident could best be compared to that of a child: reactionary, undisciplined, haphazard and deleterious. Im glad to learn more sensible minds have prevailed and reconsidered nuclear power as a sustainable partner, albeit somewhat irked to see its only real commitment in this case is the overwhelming demand for energy independence amidst global conflict.
- cedilla 4y ago
  ...you do understand that your "sensible" minds only decided to keep three reactors online for six months, right? It seems like argument you have is that the "sensible" minds are agreeing with you, and a whole litany of name-calling for the people who advocated abandoning nuclear - who are largely the exact same people by the way.
jimlongton 4y ago
> „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“ Nuclear technology is risky but Fukushima isn't a good reflection of what modern nuclear power plants can accomplish. The reactors at Fukushima were designed half a century ago and were known to be flawed 35 years before the accident happened [1]. It's ironic that the plant was running longer than was originally planned in part because of Green opposition to newer power plants. [1] https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reactor-flaws-were-predicted-%E2%80%93-35-years-ago/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reactor-flaws...
peaslock 4y ago
It is measurable, but not harmful to a meaningful extent. There are lots of sources of low-dose radiation in the natural human/primate/.../mammalian environment.
- godelski 4y ago
  For what it is worth, I did an estimate on here awhile ago (welcome to search my history) where IIRC you had to eat several kilos of boar and mushrooms every day to approach limits for radiation workers (which has a large safety margin). I think many people forget that we are really good at detecting radiation. This is mostly due to Cold War era fear and so a lot of research got put into this and we have cheap and sensitive devices. Cheap enough that there are large public networks of radiation monitoring set up by citizens. Not too dissimilar from citizen weather projects.
heisig 4y ago
Emotions certainly played a major role when Germany decided to phase out nuclear in 2011, and the execution and timeline of that phase-out were poor. But that doesn't mean Germans haven't pondered seriously about this topic in the meantime. And the result is that, apart from this band-aid solution for the current winter, Germany will still phase out nuclear. Let me try to summarize the most important points I know of: - Cost. Nuclear energy is expensive energy. It just happened to be cheaper than solar and wind energy a decade ago. But the cost of renewables went down spectacularly, and the cost of nuclear went up at the same time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity). So why invest in nuclear energy when we could have more low-carbon energy for the same price elsewhere? - Subsidies. So far, all nuclear power plants have been heavily subsidized. There isn't a single country where the full cost of decommissioning and permanent storage of radioactive material is properly taken into account. And there is no power plant with a full insurance, so those risks are carried by the public. Once we eliminate these subsidies, the cost of nuclear grows even further. - Reliability. Some people dislike renewables because there are times with no wind and no sunshine. But they forget that wind and sunshine are relatively predictable and have worst-case bounds. So investing into storage and the electricity grid makes renewables highly reliable. Now look at nuclear. The worst case scenario is roughly what just happened in France: you discover a problem that affects an entire generation of power plants, and all of them have to be taken offline until the problem is resolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...). Without its European neighbors, France would be in deep trouble. If we take precautions against this risk, the cost of nuclear grows even further. - Inflexibility. Nuclear power plants need a high uptime to amortize their construction cost. But once they operate in a grid with a substantial amount of renewables, they are displaced more and more and the cost per unit of energy grows even further. - War. The Russian army has recently captured a Ukrainian nuclear power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_at_the_Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_at_the_Zaporizhzhia_Nuc...). The plant is now used to store military equipment, the employees are bullied or even tortured, and all pillars of nuclear safety are being violated. There are credible approaches how we can build a power plant that resists human stupidity or a natural disaster, but there is no way we can build a power plant that is unconditionally safe in a war zone. - Nuclear Proliferation. Once the know-how and the infrastructure for handling fissionable material is in place, even if only for civilian purposes, there is a much stronger incentive to also look into military use. And the last thing our planet needs is more nuclear weapons. Given these points, the current German position seems quite sensible and I wonder why some other nations are suddenly so eager to build new nuclear power plants.
yodelshady 4y ago
The forests near mine and just about everywhere else on the entire planet have elevated levels of BEING ON GODDAMNED FIRE thanks to coal-burners. No there's not history. There's not emotions. There's god-damned stupidity and a refusal to evaluate risk at the top level of government, that has condemned hundred of millions. I've lived near irradiated areas too. There was zero justification for this.
panick21_ 4y ago
> While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear How about not phasing it out at all. > The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden Yeah you can also measure the output form coal plants. Tschernobyl killed either literally or basically nobody in German, and hardly hurt anybody. It was basically nonsense, because of political reasons rules were adopted based on totally fraudulent science and then these rules were used in endless scare mongering campaigns and misinformation campaigns. But at some point you have to stop with pure emotional responses and endless fear-mongering and actually look at things rationally.
thisarticle 4y ago
Wait until you see how much damage coal does to your body.
credit_guy 4y ago
> Fukushima gave the debate another spin „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. That's an understandable reaction. But a better reaction would have been "what lessons did we learn?". After the 2008 financial crisis, the financial regulators around the world gathered at the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit [1] to see what can be done to improve the resiliency of the global financial markets. They came up with a Statement [2]. Later on, the Basel Committee ironed out some details, and the national regulators other details, and the outcome was a long string of financial reforms known collectively as Basel III. This was a monumental achievement (well, it's still work in progress, but it's about 80-90% done). Of course, for many professionals in the financial markets it felt more like a curse than a blessing. But we have been trough the March 2020 financial panic, and the financial system coped quite well. In the nuclear regulatory space, there are so many regulators around the world. The NRC for sure, but also the nuclear regulators in Canada, the UK, France and Finland. One can add South Korea to the list and probably a few more countries. I'm sure they are exchanging notes. Overall, I think they have probably a huge amount of experience, and they have met 99.999% of the edge cases for classical (pressurized and boiling water) reactors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G20_Pittsburgh_summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G20_Pittsburgh_summit [2] http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925.html http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III
- hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
  "What lessons did we learn?" is an excellent question, but it's the reaction of a seasoned professional. The reason we have to teach that outlook to new grads is people don't think that way by default. It's unrealistic to expect that reaction from the general populace.
tuatoru 4y ago
Can you quantify "elevated"? How does it compare to living in Denver, Colorado, vs living in Frankfurt? (Denver is at a higher altitude and also in a region of slightly radioactive rocks.) How does it compare to the effects of 30,000 km of flying?
raxxorraxor 4y ago
> was measurable in Germany It still is measurable. Only 5% of the reactor mass managed to escape into the environment. There are effective safety mechanisms but like in Fukushima they are subject to economic realities. The luck here was that water is a very good radiation absorber. It will still go into the food chain and increase risks. Perhaps not by much if we are lucky. This is politics and letting them run is populism in my opinion. They won't run longer than to their next security inspection. Even the owners were reluctant because you have to reorganize the demolition, which isn't trivial for NPP. Nuclear can be a source of energy, but the way it is currently hailed as a solution for climate change should only really convince filthy peasants. Emotional is as much a reluctance to consider better options because it is expensive and there are a lot of unsolved problems. Beginning from mining Uranium to getting rid of the waste permanently.
lm28469 4y ago
> Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. Their coal power plants made you breath more radioactive particles than Chernobyl
fartsucker69 4y ago
aren't people here supposed to be educated? there have been many studies on this. tschernobyl has had no measurable impact on any health related metrics you could come up with in countries outside the ukraine. even directly at tschernobyl the long lasting impact was minimal and most related deaths were an effect of accute exposure.

lizardactivist 4y ago

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

Finally! Everybody was telling them to do so, it was very hard to understand why they would do the opposite. Personally I'm very happy reason hasn't lost its way.

asdff 4y ago
Its pretty easy to understand why they would do the opposite: there is money invested in favor of the opposite that exerts political influence.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Narretz 4y ago

What's noteworthy is that Kanzler Scholz basically told his ministers that all 3 plants will stay open and the ministers have to organize it. That's very unusual. The coalition was actually still arguing about this, so some people, especially in the Green party are going to be pissed. But at least they now have theoretically more time to deal with other pressing issues instead of bickering about a few months more run time.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throwaway221017 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jacooper 4y ago

Honestly the way Germany has handled this crisis, shows how crappy the greens are.

HyperSane 4y ago

https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/electricity-prices-germany-ranked-amongst-highest-globally https://www.iamexpat.de/expat-info/german-expat-news/electri...

exabrial 4y ago

Awesome. Next step: Build new ones.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago

They've only delayed it until its politically easier to shut it down. The German greens' leader has backed running Coal plants as an alternative[1] The whole political position of this party rests on their fanatic opposition to Nuclear power. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energy/germany-russia-gas-supplies-winter-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energy/germany-russia-gas...

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Mark Nelson, from Radiant Energy Group, thinks otherwise. https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1582050941682954240 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1582050941682954240 quote: > For all those commenting "only until April 2023": > No utility will decommission a nuclear plant knowing this kind of reversal is possible even with Greens still in government occupying key posts. > They will not even mothball the plants. They'll just sit and wait for elections.
_dain_ 4y ago
>The whole political position of this party rests on their fanatic opposition to Nuclear power. Btw if anyone thinks this is exaggeration, it's not. They are evil fanatics: https://twitter.com/giuliasaudelli/status/1580973130990125056 https://twitter.com/giuliasaudelli/status/158097313099012505... >"Nuclear power and fossil fuels brought us here. They caused this crisis, they are not the solution." >Strong and at times emotional speech by Robert Habeck, after weeks under pressure. Defending his actions in government, but standing by Green values. He got a standing ovation. Reality: the Greens and their allies spent half a trillion USD on the "energy transition" and turned off perfectly good nuclear reactors. Result: energy shortages and diplomatic submission to Russia. And now they blame nuclear for it. If they had spent that half a trillion on new nuclear reactors, Germany would be an energy superpower. As it stands, they're having to burn coal and wood to get through the winter.
- Isolus 4y ago
  > Reality: the Greens and their allies spent half a trillion USD on the "energy transition" and turned off perfectly good nuclear reactors. Result: energy shortages and diplomatic submission to Russia. Um no. Renewable energy is now actually cheaper than nuclear energy. You could build renewable energy + storage within the same range of cost. The problem is the former government shut down nuclear power plants and then did exactly nothing. The nuclear power plants aren't perfectly good. They are very old and would need a lot of investment if run for more than a couple of month. And germany isn't even near electric energy shortages. It's currently supplying france with a lot of energy. If electric heating were used everywhere from now on, there would be an electricity problem. But for that the electric heaters are missing.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

Good. Germany was facing a cold winter, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely. Who in their right mind would decom any type of energy that could help stave off pain for their citizenship - especially one that has no carbon footprint.

V__ 4y ago
Whether one is pro nuclear or not, I think it makes sense to look at the specific situation at hand. Was it a mistake to shut down all nuclear reactors while not pushing for more renewables and replacing all gas and coal plants first? I think so. Should the last three remaining nuclear plants be kept online? I don't think so. Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuclear can reduce gas consumption. However, only about 10% of gas (see edit) is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. In a worst-case scenario, those nuclear power plants can help stabilize the grid, but they are not needed in general. The downside is, that they were already in the process of being shut down. They now need to undergo new safety checks, the fuel rods are nearly spend and this will cost 100 millions. Money which can be spent better. This winter also isn't predicted to be particularly cold, so the full gas storages in combination with the soon opening LNG-terminals will suffice. EDIT: I made a mistake, 10% of electricity is gas.
- xg15 4y ago
  > Germany's main source of heating is gas and yes, gas is used to generate electricity, so nuclear can reduce gas consumption. However, only about 10% of gas is used for electricity and Germany has enough electricity. In a worst-case scenario, those nuclear power plants can help stabilize the grid, but they are not needed in general. A number of cities also use district heating, where the heat is taken directly from the cooling circuits of nearby power stations. No idea what percentage of total heating this is and if nuclear plants are involved here, but this would be another way how those plants could (theoretically) contribute to heating.
  - 4y ago

clemensley 4y ago

Finally. Opposition to nuclear is beyond unreasonable. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

legulere 4y ago
That statistic is only about deaths. You still have to deal with nuclear accidents leading to evacuation of huge areas happening once around every 30 years (unknown unknowns and what not). Germany has a high population density. Such a catastrophe happening in Germany would lead to millions getting evacuated. Another issue is the safe disposal of nuclear waste. It might seem like a low risk, but over the huge timespan nuclear waste needs to be safeguarded that risk adds up. Of course there's also other sources of nuclear waste, but it's best to keep the amounts low. Last, nuclear currently in the west runs into economic problems. New reactors are plagued by enormous cost overruns and struggle to compete with renewables. But also old reactors are starting to become prohibitively expensive to keep running.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Nuclear waste is disposed of by being buried underground in a region with impermeable bedrock. Short of deliberate excavation, or a direct meteor impact, there is no scenario in which this waste gets brought back to the surface.
- Cwizard 4y ago
  I'd much rather be evacuated (and live) than die from air pollution.
- asdff 4y ago
  That's a good point, maybe we should also be evacuating huge areas around dirty power plants considering we are aware of the harm they cause to the nearby population? Nuclear waste is a non issue. If you want to make it perfectly safe and untouchable to most bad actors, you can always dump it into a trench in the ocean. The radioactivity will not penetrate far through ocean water and will be less than other sources of radiation in the ocean today. The only reason why we do things like keep it stored on site, is because its still useful material that can be used in future reaction designs, and throwing it into the sea would be a waste of resources we worked hard to extract from the earth in the first place. I also have not seen any examples in history of people taking waste from a powerplant and turning that into a weapon against other people. So far in history, the only time nuclear weaponry has been used against humans was when it was built by an American arms factory, which is pretty remarkable considering the inherent violence that many of the elite of our species rely upon to maintain their power.

tonymet 4y ago

maliker 4y ago

In case anyone was curious, Germany used to get 25% of its generation from nuclear (now more like 10%), and they had as many as 17 nuclear reactors as of 2010. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Good thing they exported 15% of their domestic energy production to the friendly state of Russia - in the form of natural gas imports ($20B per year). What could possibly go wrong?
- Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
  96% of european uranium demand is met by imports, 4% is domestic, and 20% are imported from russia. Source: Euratom Supply Agency - Annual Report 2021 - Page 14 https://euratom-supply.ec.europa.eu/publications/esa-annual-reports_en https://euratom-supply.ec.europa.eu/publications/esa-annual-... Also look at page 26ff which states that it would take years to replace current dependency on russia, not only in raw ressources, but also enrichment and recycling services.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    You can import 100% of Uranium from actual allies without problem.
    - Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
      the linked Euroatom Supply Agency Report says otherwise. But it's besides the point anyway: the grandparent argued that it is stupid to import 15% energy
      - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
        Russia is 19% of your Uranium imports. Larger for natural gas. You can easily source that 19% from Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia, and the US instead of Russia.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

namuol 4y ago

State-sponsored nuclear fear-mongering is likely to accelerate dramatically online in the coming years. Will it be the right that goes anti-nuclear this time? Hopefully not.