You can still not safely eat mushrooms from the south-eastern parts of Bavaria because they are still contaminated by the Chernobyl desaster. The anti-nuclear stance is not irrational, it has strong roots in reality.
Germany's Energy Catastrophe
11–20 of 171 posts
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, let's take a look at France: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-p... > As the European Union moves to cut ties to Russian oil and gas in the wake of Moscow’s war on Ukraine, France has been betting on its nuclear plants to weather a looming energy crunch. Nuclear power provides about 70 percent of France’s electricity, a bigger share than any other country in the world. But the industry…
Like most of the western world, France permitted their nuclear capacity to rot while not making sufficient progress to secure other sources of relatively clean energy.
No true Scottish nuclear plant, I guess.
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#13Germany proceeded with their "nuclear exit" in 2011. Had they gone the other way and all in on nuclear, they would be in the same situation as they are today as planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years. Actually they would be way worse because instead of having 50% of electricity coming from renewables, they would still have 45% of it coming from coal, instead of 25% in 2020 (did not chec…
They wouldn't have shut down all the working plants. Not that it matters much, wouldn't have been enough.
They were old, some came online in the 60s. Check the situation in France right now -- half of their aging fleet is offline because they basically can't get them to work. The NY Times had an article on it recently.
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#14Germany proceeded with their "nuclear exit" in 2011. Had they gone the other way and all in on nuclear, they would be in the same situation as they are today as planning and building nuclear plants takes a lot longer than 10 years. Actually they would be way worse because instead of having 50% of electricity coming from renewables, they would still have 45% of it coming from coal, instead of 25% in 2020 (did not chec…
It’s the Phrenology Anthology, what do you expect?
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#15Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time). Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children. Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.
All deaths from nuclear anything ever are a rounding error compared to dirty power sources.
Almost a hundred staff died in a hydro disaster in 2009, for some perspective.
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#16Yikes! Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power. Not understanding that nuclear doesn’t play well with renewables (it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time). Finally explaining that there were only 28 deaths after the Chernobyl accident, ignoring all the additional deaths by cancer and deformed unborn children. Sorry, this article is totally wrong in so many ways.
Genuinely curious, because I haven't heard these arguments before.
> Totally ignoring the climate impact of nuclear power
What climate impact? I though it was CO2 neutral (except for construction, which has similar costs to wind an solar). A quick google doesn't give me anything.
> it is hard to control the output in a short amount of time
I thought nuclear was basically a steam boiler, same as coal or gas plants? Why is the control slower for nuclear?
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#17I'm tired of these probably nuclear industry backed articles that are wrong and miss the point.
1. Nuclear energy is no solution. See here for an example how things turn out in real life (in German): https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutsche-Solaranlagen-haengen...
2. Germany doesn't really lack electricity. You cannot replace gas in industrial processes that need heat just like that with electricity. If you could, you could also use renewable energy. Things change very slowly on this side.
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#18Another of those propaganda articles by nuclear lobbyist.
Re: Germany's Energy Catastrophe
#19There is no quick going back to nuclear power and right now the past is irrelevant - the future matters. Might as well skip on new fission and then maybe build fusion power plants (if and when).
By the way: using coal as an emergency backstop if there is no gas was always the official plan.