23 ms·

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 measura

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.

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.