8 ms·

The decision to turn off nuclear plants in Germany was not made by the greens. It was made years ago by the CDU after Fukushima.

The decision to turn off nuclear plants in Germany was __not__ made by the greens. It was made years ago by the CDU after Fukushima.

Lev1a 4y ago
> after Fukushima And can we talk about how stupid and actively malicious it is to use the Fukushima accident as a reason for shutting down nuclear plants in Germany? Fukushima: nuclear plant in a seismically very active region in very close proximity to the ocean where tsunamis are not really a rarity vs. German nuclear plants: not very seismically active (if at all), no tsunamis i've ever heard of, not counting floods as those are 1. easier to foresee and manage and 2. very much less intense than a sudden wall of water razing everything in its path. Also in Japan you kinda have to build near the coast since its surrounded by ocean on all sides while being stretched out long and not that wide with mountains as a backbone in the middle. Germany on the other hand only has the North and Baltic Sea at its northern end then progressively gets higher above sea level the more south you go, ultimately ending at the northern end of the Alps. This decision and especially this reasoning didn't make sense then and still doesn't nowadays. It was just a kneejerk reaction to retain voter support by exploiting the fear of the uneducated and the anti-nuclear crowd.
- fsh 4y ago
  The Fukushima reactors and a lot of the german ones were built by the same company. They overlooked the flood risk on the japanese coast (which has huge tsunamis every few decades). What did they overlook elsewhere? After Chernobyl, politicians promised that western reactors could not possibly explode. Fukushima proved them wrong.
  - anton96 4y ago
    No, Fukushima proved them right. Fukushima ended in no way like Tchernobyl did. The Soviet power plan released radioactivity in the air, make an entire area inhabitable and killed a few dozen a people. Fukushima did nothing of this, everything stayed inside the structure, no radioactivity went out. As Fukushima had no recovery generators available (no fuel in them), it is a great proof that a totally out of control modern power plant is not deadly.
    - fsh 4y ago
      The Fukushima disaster cleanup cost a trillion dollars. Over a hundred thousand people were (at least temporarily) displaced. I would call this a pretty darn big failure.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The trillion dollar figure is a bit of a stretch and includes a lot of stuff that didn't need to happen or was double counted. Less motivated reasoning gives about $300bn which would still be enough to easily replace every coal and oil plant in the country with renewables (as well as half of the gas).
  - evilos 4y ago
    Comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl is not really justified Chernobyl: Core meltdown and catastrophic explosion of entire reactor. Caused by gross negligence when safety system disabled. Direct deaths: <100 Estimated indirect deaths: 4 to 16 thousand Fukushima: Caused by 4th largest earthquake in history. No core explosion. Hydrogen explosion destroyed non structural part of building (this was by design). Core meltdown but largely contained. Contamination of air/water from venting to atmosphere. Direct deaths: 1 employee died of cancer Estimated indirect deaths: 300-2000
- legulere 4y ago
  Your reasoning why nuclear accidents couldn't happen in Germany is moving the goalpost though. First the narrative was that they couldn't happen, then it was that they couldn't happen in western style reactors. The reality is that nuclear reactors can lead to big events in unforeseen situations, like also Fukushima was. It's impossible to foresee what the cause for the next big event will be.
_dain_ 4y ago
Minority parties can make the governing parties do things. UKIP wasn't in government but they made the Conservative party promise a referendum, which the eurosceptic side won -- and that was in a FPTP system! The Greens weren't in government but they had a lot of influence in the Bundestag and in the various Länder. The anti-nuclear cause has been around for decades, they creep in everywhere like a fungus.
- llampx 4y ago
  Merkel adopted the anti-nuclear stance to take votes from the Greens, and her administration accelerated the shutdown of Germany's nuclear power plants after Fukushima. Don't blame the Greens, although I do think they are a dogmatic single-issue party and don't see the forest for the trees.

The decision to turn off nuclear plants in Germany was __not__ made by the greens. It was made years ago by the CDU after Fukushima.

Lev1a 4y ago

> after Fukushima And can we talk about how stupid and actively malicious it is to use the Fukushima accident as a reason for shutting down nuclear plants in Germany? Fukushima: nuclear plant in a seismically very active region in very close proximity to the ocean where tsunamis are not really a rarity vs. German nuclear plants: not very seismically active (if at all), no tsunamis i've ever heard of, not counting floods as those are 1. easier to foresee and manage and 2. very much less intense than a sudden wall of water razing everything in its path. Also in Japan you kinda have to build near the coast since its surrounded by ocean on all sides while being stretched out long and not that wide with mountains as a backbone in the middle. Germany on the other hand only has the North and Baltic Sea at its northern end then progressively gets higher above sea level the more south you go, ultimately ending at the northern end of the Alps. This decision and especially this reasoning didn't make sense then and still doesn't nowadays. It was just a kneejerk reaction to retain voter support by exploiting the fear of the uneducated and the anti-nuclear crowd.

fsh 4y ago
The Fukushima reactors and a lot of the german ones were built by the same company. They overlooked the flood risk on the japanese coast (which has huge tsunamis every few decades). What did they overlook elsewhere? After Chernobyl, politicians promised that western reactors could not possibly explode. Fukushima proved them wrong.
- anton96 4y ago
  No, Fukushima proved them right. Fukushima ended in no way like Tchernobyl did. The Soviet power plan released radioactivity in the air, make an entire area inhabitable and killed a few dozen a people. Fukushima did nothing of this, everything stayed inside the structure, no radioactivity went out. As Fukushima had no recovery generators available (no fuel in them), it is a great proof that a totally out of control modern power plant is not deadly.
  - fsh 4y ago
    The Fukushima disaster cleanup cost a trillion dollars. Over a hundred thousand people were (at least temporarily) displaced. I would call this a pretty darn big failure.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The trillion dollar figure is a bit of a stretch and includes a lot of stuff that didn't need to happen or was double counted. Less motivated reasoning gives about $300bn which would still be enough to easily replace every coal and oil plant in the country with renewables (as well as half of the gas).
- evilos 4y ago
  Comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl is not really justified Chernobyl: Core meltdown and catastrophic explosion of entire reactor. Caused by gross negligence when safety system disabled. Direct deaths: <100 Estimated indirect deaths: 4 to 16 thousand Fukushima: Caused by 4th largest earthquake in history. No core explosion. Hydrogen explosion destroyed non structural part of building (this was by design). Core meltdown but largely contained. Contamination of air/water from venting to atmosphere. Direct deaths: 1 employee died of cancer Estimated indirect deaths: 300-2000
legulere 4y ago
Your reasoning why nuclear accidents couldn't happen in Germany is moving the goalpost though. First the narrative was that they couldn't happen, then it was that they couldn't happen in western style reactors. The reality is that nuclear reactors can lead to big events in unforeseen situations, like also Fukushima was. It's impossible to foresee what the cause for the next big event will be.

_dain_ 4y ago

Minority parties can make the governing parties do things. UKIP wasn't in government but they made the Conservative party promise a referendum, which the eurosceptic side won -- and that was in a FPTP system! The Greens weren't in government but they had a lot of influence in the Bundestag and in the various Länder. The anti-nuclear cause has been around for decades, they creep in everywhere like a fungus.

llampx 4y ago
Merkel adopted the anti-nuclear stance to take votes from the Greens, and her administration accelerated the shutdown of Germany's nuclear power plants after Fukushima. Don't blame the Greens, although I do think they are a dogmatic single-issue party and don't see the forest for the trees.