3 ms·

It is a cultural thing, the green party defined and bound their identity with the anti nuclear movement in the 80s/90s and now they rose to power. And that mov

It is a cultural thing, the green party defined and bound their identity with the anti nuclear movement in the 80s/90s and now they rose to power. And that movement was strong back then, because chernobyl happened, the clouds came over here and to this day, it is recommended against eating mushrooms from the forest regulary. Then Fukoshima revitalisied that traumata and in the heat of the moment, the decision was made.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Bullshit. The "Green" party is hovering around 20%, at best. Stop using them as scapegoats for bashing of opinions you don't like. Nuclear power is very unpopular in Germany. People don't like nuclear infrastructure in their back yards. And it's far from an irrational fear. And yes, there is a part about "We don't want nuclear weapons", so there is one less incentive to stomach the cost and issues and bulldoze over concerns. At the moment we can have political arguments about keeping one or two online. Don't mistake that for a desire or ability to build new ones...
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  They are part of the government and they are firmly anti nuclear and use their power. But sure, the base support for nuclear is low people who vote for them. Which is why even the CDU adopted it. Also I don't see, where I was bashing anything.
  - mqus 4y ago
    Sure, the greens have not prolonged the nuclear power plants, but right now this is mostly an economic decision. It's just too expensive for too little gain, to change plans again and again and again. The providers planned with destruction of those plants in mind (after being heavily compensated for shutting them down early). Planning to shut them down (without adequately speeding up replacements) was a mistake. But it's also a mistake to now decide to keep them (just 3! plants) running
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      It's only a mistake to shut down the power plants if you assume we want to build lots more plants, nothing goes wrong and perfectly long term storage can be found. Really, to want nuclear power you need a high risk appetite. You label everyone who doesn't have that appetite as irrational. That's dishonest.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        "Really, to want nuclear power you need a high risk appetite." So there is no risk involved, with betting on fossil fuels and the dictators who sell it? (and the health risk from coal) And reneawbles are just not there yet, to cover 100% and they still have a long way to go. My personal favourite would have been desertec, but that did not come very far. And there is a big political risk there as well. Morocco is a dictatorship, but stable and the rest is quite instable. Maybe the southern EU countries would get enough sun, to achieve a "desertec" in the EU, but it is a risk as well, to bet on it. Governments change. Opinions change. Prices change. Blackmailing is a thing in politics. In short, do you have a solution, that is quite riskfree which does not involve coal and does not make us dependant on dictators? "perfectly long term storage can be found" And why does it have to be perfect? It has to be good enough, that nothing leaks. Otherwise it can be moved and it could also be recycled.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order. It also has to be acceptable to the population. Another tall order. You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. Actually, renewable energy is the only way left because nuclear power takes decades to ramp up. Not only do nuclear power plants take years or decades to plan and build according to plan, they almost always go way over time and budget. Both fossil fuel and renewable have a huge advantage in terms of risk over nuclear power (apart from not nuking populated areas): Nuclear power plants irrevocably commit their society to a couple of decades of risk. Unless you pull the plug early and eat the horrendous cost.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Bullshit. The "Green" party is hovering around 20%, at best. Stop using them as scapegoats for bashing of opinions you don't like. Nuclear power is very unpopular in Germany. People don't like nuclear infrastructure in their back yards. And it's far from an irrational fear. And yes, there is a part about "We don't want nuclear weapons", so there is one less incentive to stomach the cost and issues and bulldoze over concerns. At the moment we can have political arguments about keeping one or two online. Don't mistake that for a desire or ability to build new ones...

hutzlibu 4y ago
They are part of the government and they are firmly anti nuclear and use their power. But sure, the base support for nuclear is low people who vote for them. Which is why even the CDU adopted it. Also I don't see, where I was bashing anything.
- mqus 4y ago
  Sure, the greens have not prolonged the nuclear power plants, but right now this is mostly an economic decision. It's just too expensive for too little gain, to change plans again and again and again. The providers planned with destruction of those plants in mind (after being heavily compensated for shutting them down early). Planning to shut them down (without adequately speeding up replacements) was a mistake. But it's also a mistake to now decide to keep them (just 3! plants) running
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    It's only a mistake to shut down the power plants if you assume we want to build lots more plants, nothing goes wrong and perfectly long term storage can be found. Really, to want nuclear power you need a high risk appetite. You label everyone who doesn't have that appetite as irrational. That's dishonest.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Really, to want nuclear power you need a high risk appetite." So there is no risk involved, with betting on fossil fuels and the dictators who sell it? (and the health risk from coal) And reneawbles are just not there yet, to cover 100% and they still have a long way to go. My personal favourite would have been desertec, but that did not come very far. And there is a big political risk there as well. Morocco is a dictatorship, but stable and the rest is quite instable. Maybe the southern EU countries would get enough sun, to achieve a "desertec" in the EU, but it is a risk as well, to bet on it. Governments change. Opinions change. Prices change. Blackmailing is a thing in politics. In short, do you have a solution, that is quite riskfree which does not involve coal and does not make us dependant on dictators? "perfectly long term storage can be found" And why does it have to be perfect? It has to be good enough, that nothing leaks. Otherwise it can be moved and it could also be recycled.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order. It also has to be acceptable to the population. Another tall order. You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. Actually, renewable energy is the only way left because nuclear power takes decades to ramp up. Not only do nuclear power plants take years or decades to plan and build according to plan, they almost always go way over time and budget. Both fossil fuel and renewable have a huge advantage in terms of risk over nuclear power (apart from not nuking populated areas): Nuclear power plants irrevocably commit their society to a couple of decades of risk. Unless you pull the plug early and eat the horrendous cost.