71–80 of 399 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by "safer"? Less accidents compared to eg coal plants? No exploding coal plant will render a whole region unlivable for >30 years. Both happened at Tschernobyl and Fukushima.
Areas around coal power plants can exceed radioactivity limits for nuclear power plants, due to trace elements in the soot landing back down. Never mind all the other stuff. That’s pretty nasty, I’d rather be close to a nuclear power plant.
I'm a US expat living in Germany, and boy is the anti-nuclear sentiment real here. There have even been fights - physical altercations - between Green Party members at rallies for having differing viewpoints about nuclear. Unfortunately, it seems those who are against are working with very outdated information and 'tropes' w.r.t. nuclear safety and whatnot. Quite unfortunate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41447603 Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder oversaw the shutdown of Germany's nukes. Now he's on the board of Rosneft, a giant fossil fuel company controlled by the Russian Government.
Ha, and people keep saying there's no corruption in Germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
German here. I can't really compare the viewpoints, but historically, the anti-nuclear movement has been an integral part of the german civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. [1] I believe there have been two key events which have influenced this: - Chernobyl. Being in close proximity, the event had a far stronger impact than in the US: There was widespread contamination from fallout drifting over from Ukraine and…
Hi, what's the general population's stance on Belgian nuclear plants ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being the front line of the Cold War, while both the US and USSR developed battle plans for where nuclear weapons would be detonated in your country during a war, probably lends shades to the debate that aren't present in other countries. (Yes, nuclear power / nuclear weapons, but in the 70s that wasn't a clear distinction)
Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans. Of course MAD pretty much ensured a 0% chance of nuclear war so really nothing to worry about. Nations truly worried about nuclear weapons develop them, not fight against them. Think about it. Considering that Germany is an am…
Completely wrong. A NATO-Russia war could have been (and still could) be fought entirely in central Europe. This might include tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by short- and medium-range missiles and aircraft. This is why it was said that "In Germany, the towns are only two kilotons apart" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/11/n...>).
To put another way, it's possible to realistically imagine a war in which Germany is hit with nuclear weapons but the US and Russia aren't. It's not realistic to imagine a war in which the US and Russia are hit with nukes but Germany isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is statistically safer than almost anything even if you take Chernobyl and Fukushima into account.
What do you mean by "safer"? Less accidents compared to eg coal plants? No exploding coal plant will render a whole region unlivable for >30 years. Both happened at Tschernobyl and Fukushima.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems as though French engineering has been sufficient for nearly half a century now.
On the contrary, our major nuclear R&D company messed up an extension of the Flamanville nuclear plant multiple times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
"The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion, so in principle, any construction costs above that price fall on Areva. In July 2012, those overruns were estimated at more than €2 billion, and in December 2012, Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion, well over the previous estimate of €6.4 billion."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being the front line of the Cold War, while both the US and USSR developed battle plans for where nuclear weapons would be detonated in your country during a war, probably lends shades to the debate that aren't present in other countries. (Yes, nuclear power / nuclear weapons, but in the 70s that wasn't a clear distinction)
Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans. Of course MAD pretty much ensured a 0% chance of nuclear war so really nothing to worry about. Nations truly worried about nuclear weapons develop them, not fight against them. Think about it. Considering that Germany is an am…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is statistically safer than almost anything even if you take Chernobyl and Fukushima into account.
What do you mean by "safer"? Less accidents compared to eg coal plants? No exploding coal plant will render a whole region unlivable for >30 years. Both happened at Tschernobyl and Fukushima.