7 ms·

It‘s basically fear. The Green Party was founded with the mission to stop nuclear power in Germany. The media repeated their talking points for years and years.

• civilized 3y ago
  As an American, it's so interesting to look at the intra-European differences we normally ignore. France managed to scale nuclear power with the consent of the population, and it's gone fine, but for some reason countries right next door don't see anything worth learning. I guess you could say the same about America and Canada, but some of us are accustomed to seeing Europeans as more enlightened than us politically. I suppose people around the world are not that different in the end.
  • Mashimo 3y ago
    France has a long term storage for nuclear waste. Germany has to dig their waste up again because groundwater is leaking in.
    • civilized 3y ago
      Interesting point, but seems unlikely to be a root cause of the difference? If anything I would guess the causation goes in the other direction - France was more committed and so did a more thoughtful job setting up nuclear sustainably.
      • bayesian_horse 3y ago
        Nope, Nope, Nope. France wanted to have nuclear weapons. Germany wasn't allowed to have them and we mostly didn't want to have them in any case (after WWII at least). Germany's nuclear infrastructure was just as "sustainable" (and that is a strange word for nuclear industry considering the investments, the mining, etc) as the French one, but smaller and entirely civilian.
        • LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
          > entirely civilian ...Hrrm... There has been a strange clustering of Leukemia in children near Geesthacht, with much fuss about why that could be, and that it can't be at all related to the NPP Krümmel and adjoining research center there. There has been a tv-documentary by the ZDF in 2006, titled "Und keiner weiss warum... Leukämietod in der Elbmarsch" a few articles in the mainstream media, and some blogposts then. From my memory it was all very strange, much hush-hush by the local government, defamation of concerned citizens, and even stranger the burning up of evidence in of all possible places, a fire station involved several times with emergencies there. By random chance...imagine.... ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuk%C3%A4miecluster_Elbmarsch#M%C3%B6glicher_Brandvorfall_am_GKSS_1986 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuk%C3%A4miecluster_Elbmarsch... / https://www.atommuellreport.de/daten/detail/forschungszentrum-geesthacht.html https://www.atommuellreport.de/daten/detail/forschungszentru... / https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/geesthacht-labor-bestreitet-verbotene-atom-experimente-1.885955 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/geesthacht-labor-bestrei... / https://netzwerk-regenbogen.de/atomgk070413.html https://netzwerk-regenbogen.de/atomgk070413.html ) Also harassment and hampering of scientists which collected ground samples all over the area, and found no lab willing to examine them in all Germany. So they got it done in Minsk, Belorussia. Funny, isn't it? What was found there where so called 'spherules', not bigger than one millimeter, hollow ceramic spheres, with (meanwhile?) weakly radioactive matter in them. Obviously artificial. And unknown. Speculation ensues. Micronukes... Conspiracy!1!! Interestingly very similar stuff was also found in Hanau. ( www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/hanau-ermittlungen-wegen-radioaktiver-stoffe-im-wald-a-195069.html ) Whatever, call me sceptic regarding 'civilian'. Especially when the names of Kurt Diebner and Erich Bagge are involved :-)
          • bayesian_horse 3y ago
            Germany doesn't have the capacity to keep anything secret for long. We're a lot worse than the US in that regard, and even they can't keep such things secret. There were never even rumors anybody wanted a nuclear weapons program. No dark funds. The IAEA is also controlling everything. So yes, any such speculation is ridiculous.
  • 0xDEF 3y ago
    For the past many decades the French political elite has been ignoring populist sentiments among the French population. That is a good thing regarding nuclear energy but much more problematic when it comes to issues like the recent pension reforms.
    • civilized 3y ago
      Do you think it's a bad idea (I mean policy-wise, separate from politically) to increase retirement age when increasing longevity and low birthrates have shifted the number of workers supporting each retiree so massively? In the US, if I recall correctly, it was once more than 10:1 but now approaching 2:1, and the financial implications of this are massive.
      • soco 3y ago
        In the end it makes sense, damn the financial mathematics nobody understands, damn our children - let them pay for our round-the-world trips when we reach 62! And when your importance is rated by how much noise you make, it's totally understandable why union leaders pushed against such a logical and long due measure.
      • anonym29 3y ago
        It's so much worse than that, sadly. When Social Security was founded in 1935, the full retirement age was 65, and life expectency at birth was 60. Immigration was, though not at record levels, high. As a result, there were ~147 working people paying into Social Security for every beneficiary. These days, full retirement age is 67, but life expectancy at birth is now 76.1 (was 78.8 in 2019 - the rapid decline is a completely separate issue that deserves it's own thread). Net immigration into the US is at record lows. As a result, there are now fewer than 3 people paying into Social Security for every recipient, about 2.6 last time I ran the numbers. The average (mean) check for SS recipients (OASI) as of Feb 2023 is $1,693.88. I could not find numbers for the median SS check. The average individual income in the US as of 2020 is $53,383, while the 2020 median income was $34,612. Of FICA taxes, 6.2% each from the employer and employee goes to Social Security, the other 1.45% each is earmarked for Medicare. This does NOT include ordinary federal income taxes, state income taxes, county or city income taxes, etc. So there is an effective tax rate of 12.4% feeding Social Security. It virtually all goes to OASI (Old Age Survivorship Insurance - "retirement" Social Security, distinct from DI, Disability Insurance, which costs a teeny tiny fraction of what OASI costs). 12.4% of the mean individual annual income of $53,383, divided by 12 to get a monthly value, gives us $551.62/month in Social Security funding from the mean income. 12.4% of the median individual annual income of $34,612, divided by 12 to get a monthly value, gives us $357.65/month in Social Security funding from the mean income. So right now, there is about: 2.6 × [$357.65 to $551.62] roughly responsible for funding $1,693.88 per person. Now multiply that deficit by 67 million, the number of people receiving OASI. No prize for spotting the problem here. Raising taxes probably won't help as much as proponents think it will, especially if you were to only raise them on the "rich" by raising or removing the FICA cap. Individually, it would be a lot more from those wealthy folks in theory, but the mega-rich of the world don't receive ordinary income the way us mere mortals do, and thanks to the 6,000+ page tax code, they often end up paying far less than we do as an effective tax rate on their income. I see two solutions: scrap the absurdly complex tax code so the wealthy actually pay what they should be paying according to progressive tax rates to buy some time, and use that time to start figuring out how to solve the massive logistical complexity problems of spinning down the largest mathmatically unsustainable pyramid scheme in the history of all of humanity, the OASI component of Social Security. Mathematically, there is no need to disturb the Disability Insurance component of Social Security, which also helps those who have a far greater legitimate need for supplemental income than people who want to retire on the taxpayer's dime.
  • DoreenMichele 3y ago
    My general understanding is that for France nuclear energy is about securing its sovereignty as a nation. It was the only means to have adequate control over its energy supply to not be held hostage by some other nation.
    • rswskg 3y ago
      Plus a path to nuclear weapons.
  • bayesian_horse 3y ago
    France subsidized nuclear energy in order to get nuclear weapons. So the incentive is (perceived) national security. Germany was prevented from having nuclear weapons by various treaties.
  • adrianN 3y ago
    France is also massively reducing the amount of nuclear power in their grid, for economic reasons.
    • gpvos 3y ago
      I understand that actually the reduction is happening really slowly. Which economic reasons?
  • LeanderK 3y ago
    Another point is that germany is decentralised whereas france is centralised. France can formulate a policy and stick to it, but in germany usually every level of government is involved. And nobody wants to have a nuclear power plants near you. Ignoring local decisions for the greater good is very hard in germany. So I think a there's also naturally a greater pushback in germany than france and then came Chernobyl, which (if I remember correclty) affected germany way more than france. You can still find traces if you analyse wild deer shot from certain areas. You can also see this in the rail networks, if you ignore that france invested more into it's rail there's also a different philosophy. France not only connected major population centres, it is also quite focused on paris. Exactly as some planners, sitting in paris and planning top-down would devise them. Germany tries to interconnect as much as possible, benefitting as many as possible.
    • hutzlibu 3y ago
      "You can still find traces if you analyse wild deer shot from certain areas." A bit more than that. Meat from wild boars in saxony and bavaria must be tested, before it can be sold and they do not disclose how much has to be thrown away.
      • themaninthedark 3y ago
        The fact they don't track how much has to be thrown away is a problem, it could be none and the program is just continued.
    • mcv 3y ago
      > Ignoring local decisions for the greater good is very hard in germany. So how come they're destroying entire villages to mine more coal? Coal, which is far more polluting than nuclear power? I'm not a fan of nuclear power either, but the German addiction to coal is incomprehensible.
      • LeanderK 3y ago
        great question! Coal is unfortunately very well connected on every level of the government. For example, the unions are one of the oldest and have very good political connections, especially to the left of the political spectrum and down to the smaller levels. So combined with the corporations they wield a lot of power. I've also seen major players of the political, federal left, meeting with representatives of these unions. They are the typical union-jobs with large corporations in the background.
  • PurpleRamen 3y ago
    Nuclear power in France works so fine, they need to shut them down in summer because of cooling-problems. Instead, they buy from Germany, which surprise, has no problems at all in Summer to cover even other countries demand.
    • Krssst 3y ago
      Nuclear in France worked very well for decades although it had some hiccups last year. Meanwhile German coal plants are still working despite the considerable installed renewable capacity. Having so much available renewable electricity that German coal plants would almost shut down for a few days would be a newsworthy event. For France not burning coal is just a regular day (except for last year's hiccups).
      • PurpleRamen 3y ago
        True, but Germany is shutting down coal too. There is just a bit of delay, for multiple reasons, but mostly because of war and politics.
        • ChuckNorris89 3y ago
          That couldn't be more false. Coal burning in Germany is at its peak. They're even tearing down old villages to mine coal.
          • PurpleRamen 3y ago
            The current peak is because of Russia. Coal is used to replace gas, on which they had not much choice. And this peak is supposed to stop in summer. We will see if it will work out. But the phase-out is a long investment and the current plan targets 2038, so it is there. A crucial point is, coal is an important part of some industries, and they have started moving hard to replace it there, so there is a good chance it will work this time. They already tried that 20 years ago, until some corrupt people figured out it's more profitable to move slow, as nobody cared anyway.
  • Tommstein 3y ago
    > I guess you could say the same about America and Canada, but some of us are accustomed to seeing Europeans as more enlightened than us politically. Speak for yourself.
• hutzlibu 3y ago
  "how expensive and dangerous nuclear power is" Well, it is dangerous and therefore expensive. Mining Uranium is dirty. Handling the waste is expensive. And handling a big accident is very expensive. The alternatives are just expensive as well and not without risk either. So sure, big parts of those fears are definitely irrational. The risks of the invisible dangers of things people do not understand. This is always hard, especially coupled with the fear of a nuclear war. It should probably have been propagated more, that radiation is a very natural thing and without nuclear energy, there likely would be no life on earth, as the earth would be way colder, without fission inside the crust (and core?) warming the earth.