3 ms·

The source for Germany's CO2 emissions is a pro-coal-miner stance, not an anti-nuclear position: Germany happily threw away a 120k workers strong photovoltaics

The source for Germany's CO2 emissions is a pro-coal-miner stance, not an anti-nuclear position: Germany happily threw away a 120k workers strong photovoltaics industry while protecting a 40k workers strong coal mining industry. The anti-nuclear position comes from radioactive boars and even more-so from the fuck up that is the Jülich experimental reactor, a "safe by design" system that by now took 40 years of maintenance while taking another 80 before it can be dismantled. Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames)

badpun 3y ago
> (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames) The whole green movement in the Germany was co-created by KGB, in order to hamper West Germany's economic development.
alexey-salmin 3y ago
> Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. Politics and industry have repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power generation is one of safest industries in the history of humanity. One terawatt-hour of nuclear causes on average one premature death in 33 years, even safer than wind and hydro.
- Incipient 3y ago
  In the same way I wouldn't feel entirely safe driving around in a car from the 60s, nuclear reactor design has come a long way since then. And considering how absolutely ancient the Japanese reactors are, they came incredibly close to not failing. Anything modern simply wouldn't have.
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    > Anything modern simply wouldn't have. That was the claim for the technology they developed at Jülich, too. And it does look good on paper. Seriously, as long as you try to argue on technical merit, you're missing the point of the debate on nuclear power in Germany. It all came down to having to trust people who have demonstrated that they're not at all trustworthy.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  The issue isn't as much as the realized damage, it's the way it's been handled. Ask the people in charge at the time and Jülich never had any issue: it's deny, deflect, deter all the way. So we're dealing with an industry that cuts corners whenever it feels like it, and received unlimited backing of politics by sweeping incidents under the nearest rug, and trampling over communities at will (see how the Wentland region was chosen to become a permanent storage site for nuclear waste). In such an environment at some point any statistics are meaningless, even harmful: they drive home the point that in face of the nuclear industry and its political handling, the people are just a statistic. Why should the people put up with that? Nuclear power in Germany wasn't a technical failing (for the most part), it was politics colluding with the industry in a way that evaporated any trust. Nuclear technology is highly regulated for good reason (enriched uranium 235 isn't simply available "over the counter", for example), which increases the amount of trust required. It wasn't any particular incident that killed nuclear power in Germany, it was the inability to act responsibly.
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    That is true, but it also plagues all other energy-generating industries (both green and fossil), and in general I'd say virtually all industries. Incidents are denied and swept under the rug, environment and health effects are severely underestimated, both politicians and business are corrupt and alike. Humans are flawed and we have no others. And then, the fact remains that air pollution kills millions of people every year and nuclear plants do not. "Acting responsible" in this circumstances means more nuclear.
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      Green energy industries were hampered (or outright killed, like German photovoltaics, just 10 years ago), so I wouldn't say they're all alike.

badpun 3y ago

> (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames) The whole green movement in the Germany was co-created by KGB, in order to hamper West Germany's economic development.

alexey-salmin 3y ago

> Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing. Politics and industry have repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power generation is one of safest industries in the history of humanity. One terawatt-hour of nuclear causes on average one premature death in 33 years, even safer than wind and hydro.

Incipient 3y ago
In the same way I wouldn't feel entirely safe driving around in a car from the 60s, nuclear reactor design has come a long way since then. And considering how absolutely ancient the Japanese reactors are, they came incredibly close to not failing. Anything modern simply wouldn't have.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  > Anything modern simply wouldn't have. That was the claim for the technology they developed at Jülich, too. And it does look good on paper. Seriously, as long as you try to argue on technical merit, you're missing the point of the debate on nuclear power in Germany. It all came down to having to trust people who have demonstrated that they're not at all trustworthy.
pgeorgi 3y ago
The issue isn't as much as the realized damage, it's the way it's been handled. Ask the people in charge at the time and Jülich never had any issue: it's deny, deflect, deter all the way. So we're dealing with an industry that cuts corners whenever it feels like it, and received unlimited backing of politics by sweeping incidents under the nearest rug, and trampling over communities at will (see how the Wentland region was chosen to become a permanent storage site for nuclear waste). In such an environment at some point any statistics are meaningless, even harmful: they drive home the point that in face of the nuclear industry and its political handling, the people are just a statistic. Why should the people put up with that? Nuclear power in Germany wasn't a technical failing (for the most part), it was politics colluding with the industry in a way that evaporated any trust. Nuclear technology is highly regulated for good reason (enriched uranium 235 isn't simply available "over the counter", for example), which increases the amount of trust required. It wasn't any particular incident that killed nuclear power in Germany, it was the inability to act responsibly.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  That is true, but it also plagues all other energy-generating industries (both green and fossil), and in general I'd say virtually all industries. Incidents are denied and swept under the rug, environment and health effects are severely underestimated, both politicians and business are corrupt and alike. Humans are flawed and we have no others. And then, the fact remains that air pollution kills millions of people every year and nuclear plants do not. "Acting responsible" in this circumstances means more nuclear.
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    Green energy industries were hampered (or outright killed, like German photovoltaics, just 10 years ago), so I wouldn't say they're all alike.