5 ms·

Powerful ideas have long tailed effects. The nuclear panic that crested with Chernobyl has been embedded deeply in the public consciousness, and we have not see

Powerful ideas have long tailed effects. The nuclear panic that crested with Chernobyl has been embedded deeply in the public consciousness, and we have not seen its end yet. The science of climate change has not yet had an emotional connection with the populace, so when Greenpeace says they've killed nuclear in Germany they hear "nuclear catastrophe averted", when they should hear "we love to see more coal burned, more radiation released, and accelerate climate change".

nonethewiser 4y ago
Is the fear of nuclear really higher in Germany? Lots of places are wary of nuclear but Germany proactively shutting down all plants goes the furthest.
- Arnt 4y ago
  I live in Germany but am not German. I don't think there's more fear here, compared to the other places I know. You might say there's a coalition. Several kinds of opposition adding up. For example, all of the nuclear operators were caught discarding nuclear waste at a construction site some years ago, without either permission or records. The site was supposed to become a storage site, but throwing nuclear waste before it's opened, in places where construction workers will have to work later, and not keeping records? The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience. If anyone were to seriously suggest building a new plant here, the cost overruns of Hinkley Point C would be a large problem, because another part of the public is really stingy about the public purse. And so on. It's not all fear of nuclear accidents, it's more of a coalition.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Indeed. If nuclear really were the economic bee's knees, as the nuclear stans keep saying, the opposition could be bought off and corners wouldn't have to be cut. But nuclear is way too expensive and that corrodes support.
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    > The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience. This still sounds like an emotional response. We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. The only difference is that the trash from nuclear is easy to handle and store. It seems like we implicitly still subscribe the the saying that "The solution to pollution is dilution" – we rather want to dilute our radioactive waste in the air than to put it is manageable containers or leaving it on construction sites.
    - Hackbraten 4y ago
      > We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. I’ve heard that too. Are you sure that this comparison is taking into account radioactive waste at all, rather than just comparing direct emissions into the environment during normal operation?
      - madsbuch 4y ago
        https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... it seems like these number include _everything_ also the "nuclear waste in a barrel" radiation emissions.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      I don't think it's an emotional response… it's saying "even if nuclear can be done safely, I just don't trust <list of scandal participants> to do it".
      - madsbuch 4y ago
        When you employ a worse form a energy generation than nuclear because of your response to said scandals then you are acting emotionally and not by the knowledge available.
        Arnt 4y ago
- tmalsburg2 4y ago
  No, Germany does not go the furthest. Other countries have quit nuclear long ago, e.g. Italy closed all plants in 1990 following a 1987 referendum, i.e. 33 years before Germany. Similarly Lithuania. Denmark already decided in the 1980ies not to build new plants.
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    Denmark is probably the strongest, having never built any nuclear power plants and originating those "Atomkraft? Nej tak!" stickers you still see all over Europe. https://www.atomkraftnejtak.dk/ https://www.atomkraftnejtak.dk/
  - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
    Dunno for others but Lithuania had the closure of Ignalina NPP as a condition to EU ascession. Also, that was the same type of reactors as in Chernobyl. It kind of made sense.
    - angry_octet 4y ago
      Shutting down the old Soviet reactors definitely makes sense. Small countries maintaining a nuclear industry doesn't make sense. But engineering powerhouses like Germany (or France) maintaining a nuclear capability, and keeping reliable plants operating, is very different.
twelve40 4y ago
> climate change has not yet had an emotional connection So. I see people around me in climate agony, with one (very smart) friend saying he doesn't want to have any children because of climate misery they will experience. I, as it happened, have sadly have paid little attention to the numbers side of climate things. So, with the climate change being a widely acknowledged disaster and an unimaginable catastrophe, how would it affect Germany?
- revelio 4y ago
  If you paid attention to the numbers side of things, you'd know that there is no climate catastrophe. That's mass hysteria talking, not anything scientifically grounded. Your friend is unfortunately therefore educated but maybe not that smart, if he's really in agony over this stuff. If he was smart he'd double check these claims thoroughly before making a life decision as big as not having children (assuming he really does want them).
  - Timon3 4y ago
    How so? It seems that the IPCC models have been quite accurate, and that we're on track for the more pessimistic paths. Can you explain how the numbers show that this is not true?
    - revelio 4y ago
      Not at all! The IPCC models have come under very heavy criticism even from the more moderate climatologists, partly because the scenario that gets regularly referred to as "business as usual" (RCP8.5) in fact makes many extreme assumptions that deviate strongly from current practice. RCP 8.5 gets more than half of scenario references in the latest IPCC report, yet even the BBC has had to accept that it's unrealistic: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers. Referred to as "business as usual", the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. [...] Very few scientists realised that RCP8.5 was originally a 90th percentile outcome, not a most likely or business-as-usual outcome. They assumed too much, when they should perhaps have checked, say the authors of the review. "How many of your average climate scientists know the nuances of RCP8.5? It would certainly be interesting to know." The media, taking their steer from scientists, have tended to use the highest impacts when reporting on projections based on emissions scenarios. A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition, yet the IPCC and the various journalists and NGOs in its orbit have for years regularly reported it as such and used it to gin up reports of a non-existent crisis. Consider whether an institution that describes a scenario of massive change as "business as usual" can be trusted and what that means for their other claims. The BBC describes this as a "communications cockup" in which scientists merely didn't realize the assumptions of the scenario they were talking about. But such "cockups" occur regularly and are simply not plausible. If you really dig into this supposed crisis, it's always like this. The assumptions are absurd, unfounded or invalidated, the data is presented as precise but the error bars are massive and a million other things. You don't hear about it outside of forums like this one because the people who benefit from the population believing in an endless crisis have made it taboo to point out what they're doing.
jacquesm 4y ago
> they hear "nuclear catastrophe averted", when they should hear "we love to see more coal burned, more radiation released, and accelerate climate change". I don't think either of those are necessarily true. It could very well be that Greenpeace sees nuclear as a vestige of the non-renewable past and that they wish to remove hindrances that slow down the further acceptance of the fact that we will have to bet heavily on renewables if we are to make it out of this. The problem with strawmen of your own making is that they can be cut down by others just as easily as you could do so yourself. Greenpeace is obviously not pro-coal and the resulting release in radiation, they would have much rather seen that instead of building these nuclear plants in the first place the money that went into them had gone into renewables instead, which would have had a more positive impact on climate change in the longer term. Besides, coal isn't the only replacement fuel for the drop in nuclear capacity, which wasn't all that large to begin with so this is a bit of a FUD argument, especially given that after the studies that showed the amount of radioactivity released through fly ash there have been substantial efforts made to contain the exhaust and capture the fly ash (electrostatically, for instance). But the pro-nuclear faction is now equating less nuclear with more coal in an attempt to greenwash nuclear power. Chernobyl was as good as it gets for an accident of that scale, Fukushima closed the door as far as Germany was concerned. And France is an accident away from having a real problem because they are quite dependent on nuclear power and if the tide ever turns there they will have a real problem catching up. Germany, meanwhile has a pretty high percentage of renewables already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany And given the amount of funds they are pumping into renewables they may well end up ahead of their schedule (in part due to the drop in Russian natural gas). If anything here in NL the war in Ukraine has given a massive impetus to the transition from fossil to renewables and I hope the effect of that lasts long enough to get us to the finish line.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  It is fair enough to argue that Greenpeace in fact want renewables. However, that should be seen as an energy conservatism direction. The energy production needed to be supplied is not todays need, but the need of a future where we don't want to dig up oil. This means that jet fuels need to be produced by sequestration and all transport needs to powered by electricity (or fuel from sequestration). We also want a future where most of the land is not occupied as farm land and is more wild. This requires indoor farming techniques – again extremely energy intensive. In the end we should plan for a world that uses a lot more energy than today. As renewables scale roughly linear to land it is by many not seen as a feasible alternative, as it wouldn't be able to supply 10x the need of today (which it will already struggle with). In the end: Greenpeaces argument only works if they believe that we are at the end of technological development.
lispm 4y ago
a bit context: * Germany has a share of renewable energy for electricity in 2022 of 46% * The US has a share of renewable energy for electricity in 2022 of around 22%, even tough the potential is much larger in the US than in Germany * Germany has per capita roughly half (55%) of the US electricity consumption * the US has roughly a 4 times larger population * in the US there is one of the two big parties which is promoting fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas).
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  So then why isn't Greenpeace more active in the US than in Germany?
- angry_octet 4y ago
  None of this alters the fact that they are shutting down their safe and well maintained nukes, and as a consequence will burn a lot more coal and buy a lot more gas. And whataboutism comparisons with the US, which everyone knows is a basket case of corrupt special interests, is truly pointless.
  - lispm 4y ago
    > None of this alters the fact that they are shutting down their safe and well maintained nukes, and as a consequence will burn a lot more coal and buy a lot more gas. That's not a fact, it's simply false. Renewable energy will be expanded, as it has in the past. We have currently around 50% renewable energy for electricity. > which everyone knows is a basket case of corrupt special interests that's very shallow, given the complexity of energy policy

nonethewiser 4y ago

Is the fear of nuclear really higher in Germany? Lots of places are wary of nuclear but Germany proactively shutting down all plants goes the furthest.

Arnt 4y ago
I live in Germany but am not German. I don't think there's more fear here, compared to the other places I know. You might say there's a coalition. Several kinds of opposition adding up. For example, all of the nuclear operators were caught discarding nuclear waste at a construction site some years ago, without either permission or records. The site was supposed to become a storage site, but throwing nuclear waste before it's opened, in places where construction workers will have to work later, and not keeping records? The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience. If anyone were to seriously suggest building a new plant here, the cost overruns of Hinkley Point C would be a large problem, because another part of the public is really stingy about the public purse. And so on. It's not all fear of nuclear accidents, it's more of a coalition.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Indeed. If nuclear really were the economic bee's knees, as the nuclear stans keep saying, the opposition could be bought off and corners wouldn't have to be cut. But nuclear is way too expensive and that corrodes support.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  > The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience. This still sounds like an emotional response. We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. The only difference is that the trash from nuclear is easy to handle and store. It seems like we implicitly still subscribe the the saying that "The solution to pollution is dilution" – we rather want to dilute our radioactive waste in the air than to put it is manageable containers or leaving it on construction sites.
  - Hackbraten 4y ago
    > We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. I’ve heard that too. Are you sure that this comparison is taking into account radioactive waste at all, rather than just comparing direct emissions into the environment during normal operation?
    - madsbuch 4y ago
      https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... it seems like these number include _everything_ also the "nuclear waste in a barrel" radiation emissions.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    I don't think it's an emotional response… it's saying "even if nuclear can be done safely, I just don't trust <list of scandal participants> to do it".
    - madsbuch 4y ago
      When you employ a worse form a energy generation than nuclear because of your response to said scandals then you are acting emotionally and not by the knowledge available.
      - Arnt 4y ago
tmalsburg2 4y ago
No, Germany does not go the furthest. Other countries have quit nuclear long ago, e.g. Italy closed all plants in 1990 following a 1987 referendum, i.e. 33 years before Germany. Similarly Lithuania. Denmark already decided in the 1980ies not to build new plants.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  Denmark is probably the strongest, having never built any nuclear power plants and originating those "Atomkraft? Nej tak!" stickers you still see all over Europe. https://www.atomkraftnejtak.dk/ https://www.atomkraftnejtak.dk/
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  Dunno for others but Lithuania had the closure of Ignalina NPP as a condition to EU ascession. Also, that was the same type of reactors as in Chernobyl. It kind of made sense.
  - angry_octet 4y ago
    Shutting down the old Soviet reactors definitely makes sense. Small countries maintaining a nuclear industry doesn't make sense. But engineering powerhouses like Germany (or France) maintaining a nuclear capability, and keeping reliable plants operating, is very different.

twelve40 4y ago

> climate change has not yet had an emotional connection So. I see people around me in climate agony, with one (very smart) friend saying he doesn't want to have any children because of climate misery they will experience. I, as it happened, have sadly have paid little attention to the numbers side of climate things. So, with the climate change being a widely acknowledged disaster and an unimaginable catastrophe, how would it affect Germany?

revelio 4y ago
If you paid attention to the numbers side of things, you'd know that there is no climate catastrophe. That's mass hysteria talking, not anything scientifically grounded. Your friend is unfortunately therefore educated but maybe not that smart, if he's really in agony over this stuff. If he was smart he'd double check these claims thoroughly before making a life decision as big as not having children (assuming he really does want them).
- Timon3 4y ago
  How so? It seems that the IPCC models have been quite accurate, and that we're on track for the more pessimistic paths. Can you explain how the numbers show that this is not true?
  - revelio 4y ago
    Not at all! The IPCC models have come under very heavy criticism even from the more moderate climatologists, partly because the scenario that gets regularly referred to as "business as usual" (RCP8.5) in fact makes many extreme assumptions that deviate strongly from current practice. RCP 8.5 gets more than half of scenario references in the latest IPCC report, yet even the BBC has had to accept that it's unrealistic: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986 The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers. Referred to as "business as usual", the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely. [...] Very few scientists realised that RCP8.5 was originally a 90th percentile outcome, not a most likely or business-as-usual outcome. They assumed too much, when they should perhaps have checked, say the authors of the review. "How many of your average climate scientists know the nuances of RCP8.5? It would certainly be interesting to know." The media, taking their steer from scientists, have tended to use the highest impacts when reporting on projections based on emissions scenarios. A 500% increase in anything is not "business as usual" by definition, yet the IPCC and the various journalists and NGOs in its orbit have for years regularly reported it as such and used it to gin up reports of a non-existent crisis. Consider whether an institution that describes a scenario of massive change as "business as usual" can be trusted and what that means for their other claims. The BBC describes this as a "communications cockup" in which scientists merely didn't realize the assumptions of the scenario they were talking about. But such "cockups" occur regularly and are simply not plausible. If you really dig into this supposed crisis, it's always like this. The assumptions are absurd, unfounded or invalidated, the data is presented as precise but the error bars are massive and a million other things. You don't hear about it outside of forums like this one because the people who benefit from the population believing in an endless crisis have made it taboo to point out what they're doing.

jacquesm 4y ago

> they hear "nuclear catastrophe averted", when they should hear "we love to see more coal burned, more radiation released, and accelerate climate change". I don't think either of those are necessarily true. It could very well be that Greenpeace sees nuclear as a vestige of the non-renewable past and that they wish to remove hindrances that slow down the further acceptance of the fact that we will have to bet heavily on renewables if we are to make it out of this. The problem with strawmen of your own making is that they can be cut down by others just as easily as you could do so yourself. Greenpeace is obviously not pro-coal and the resulting release in radiation, they would have much rather seen that instead of building these nuclear plants in the first place the money that went into them had gone into renewables instead, which would have had a more positive impact on climate change in the longer term. Besides, coal isn't the only replacement fuel for the drop in nuclear capacity, which wasn't all that large to begin with so this is a bit of a FUD argument, especially given that after the studies that showed the amount of radioactivity released through fly ash there have been substantial efforts made to contain the exhaust and capture the fly ash (electrostatically, for instance). But the pro-nuclear faction is now equating less nuclear with more coal in an attempt to greenwash nuclear power. Chernobyl was as good as it gets for an accident of that scale, Fukushima closed the door as far as Germany was concerned. And France is an accident away from having a real problem because they are quite dependent on nuclear power and if the tide ever turns there they will have a real problem catching up. Germany, meanwhile has a pretty high percentage of renewables already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany And given the amount of funds they are pumping into renewables they may well end up ahead of their schedule (in part due to the drop in Russian natural gas). If anything here in NL the war in Ukraine has given a massive impetus to the transition from fossil to renewables and I hope the effect of that lasts long enough to get us to the finish line.

madsbuch 4y ago
It is fair enough to argue that Greenpeace in fact want renewables. However, that should be seen as an energy conservatism direction. The energy production needed to be supplied is not todays need, but the need of a future where we don't want to dig up oil. This means that jet fuels need to be produced by sequestration and all transport needs to powered by electricity (or fuel from sequestration). We also want a future where most of the land is not occupied as farm land and is more wild. This requires indoor farming techniques – again extremely energy intensive. In the end we should plan for a world that uses a lot more energy than today. As renewables scale roughly linear to land it is by many not seen as a feasible alternative, as it wouldn't be able to supply 10x the need of today (which it will already struggle with). In the end: Greenpeaces argument only works if they believe that we are at the end of technological development.

lispm 4y ago

a bit context: * Germany has a share of renewable energy for electricity in 2022 of 46% * The US has a share of renewable energy for electricity in 2022 of around 22%, even tough the potential is much larger in the US than in Germany * Germany has per capita roughly half (55%) of the US electricity consumption * the US has roughly a 4 times larger population * in the US there is one of the two big parties which is promoting fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas).

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
So then why isn't Greenpeace more active in the US than in Germany?
angry_octet 4y ago
None of this alters the fact that they are shutting down their safe and well maintained nukes, and as a consequence will burn a lot more coal and buy a lot more gas. And whataboutism comparisons with the US, which everyone knows is a basket case of corrupt special interests, is truly pointless.
- lispm 4y ago
  > None of this alters the fact that they are shutting down their safe and well maintained nukes, and as a consequence will burn a lot more coal and buy a lot more gas. That's not a fact, it's simply false. Renewable energy will be expanded, as it has in the past. We have currently around 50% renewable energy for electricity. > which everyone knows is a basket case of corrupt special interests that's very shallow, given the complexity of energy policy