5 ms·

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
        Well, it's not my personal opinion, so I don't suppose I care that deeply… but I confess I'm curious. The insurance company that insured the building I live in sent a letter a couple of years ago, saying that after the string of water leak problems we've had, our insurance premiums would more than double. In effect judging our insurance risk by the number and cost of our past problems. I suspect you won't describe that judgment as emotional. But when people judge a power company by its past safety record, you describe that as emotional. Why? What's the difference? What makes one judgment emotional and the other not? What does "emotional" mean?
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.

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
      Well, it's not my personal opinion, so I don't suppose I care that deeply… but I confess I'm curious. The insurance company that insured the building I live in sent a letter a couple of years ago, saying that after the string of water leak problems we've had, our insurance premiums would more than double. In effect judging our insurance risk by the number and cost of our past problems. I suspect you won't describe that judgment as emotional. But when people judge a power company by its past safety record, you describe that as emotional. Why? What's the difference? What makes one judgment emotional and the other not? What does "emotional" mean?

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.