Honestly the way Germany has handled this crisis, shows how crappy the greens are.
Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
281–290 of 392 posts
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could have instead replaced the fossil fuel electrical generation with those renewables, and kept the nuclear plants. That would have been a massive reduction in carbon emissions by Germany. Odd choice.
Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions. Glad that this will all be over soon. I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again.
> Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions
Civilian nuclear waste can absolutely not 'devastate wide regions'.
And civlian nuclear plants in the waste can also not really do that.
What actually can happen is that over a large region you measure slightly higher radiation but not actually enough to be dangerous to the people there.
> I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again.
There is no measurable impact of Chernobyl. All the claims about all the disabled children were literally all lies. Its all fear mongering.
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this argument, isn't Japan known for its earthquakes? Chernobyl has often been characterized as the result of a corrupt and incompetent late-stage USSR, whereas post-WWII Japan is seen as a generally well-run country. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, just trying to describe public opinion.
You’re not countering the implicit argument that Germany won’t have a problem with earthquakes ruining their nuclear powerplants. Germany is also a “well-run country” if you want to run with the old anti-Soviet argument.
So the lesson is that don't put together single impression for everything in a country (except communist country?). TEPCO (and some other nuclear corps in Japan) was known for hiding incidents, even prior the earthquake.
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#284Good. Germany was facing a cold winter, without energy for heating, and the potential for rolling blackouts. With this change, it does not eliminate the threat but makes it less likely. Who in their right mind would decom any type of energy that could help stave off pain for their citizenship - especially one that has no carbon footprint.
> Who in their right mind Activist politicians who value their cause more than the well being of their citizens.
s/cause/selves/g
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#285While I agree that it would have been sensible to phase out coal and then nuclear, the german position is more complex. The fallout from Tschernobyl was measurable in Germany… measurable as in my science teacher measured it in his garden. Up to today boar and mushrooms have an elevated level of radiation in the forests around my home. So this is the emotional background, the risks are not far away. Fukushima gave the…
Wait until you see how much damage coal does to your body.
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is when they go bad, it gets really bad Deepwater horizon was really bad. Plenty of coal accidents are real bad. Not having energy is really bad. Nuclear is the safest form of energy - and catastrophic failures are found in other forms of energy production.
The difference is even when coal or oil goes “worst case scenario” bad, it’s still entirely manageable. We have tools, equipment and people to put out oil rig fires, clean up oil spills and all that. Obviously Exxon Valdez was very, very bad. So was deep water horizon. Now imagine they were nuclear plantS that went bad and we didn’t get lucky like in the past. It would be many orders of magnitudes worse, for tens of…
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For a start, do we know how expensive (per unit energy) US Navy reactors are? Price does not matter. It has to work reliably, not only in calm days of peace, but during times of war. Having a source of power to move the big boats without relying on external supplies is worth the price. There even were experiments to generate jetfuel using nuclear power on carriers, certainly not because it is cheap.
Price does matter though.
Sure, just remember to account for the environmental cost of climate change when evaluating the true cost of gas and coal plants.
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is fair. Although I think some among the anti-nuclear movement may have had subversive intent, most of the people who ended up aligning with that movement did have good intentions. They were reasoning that in the long term, nuclear power would bring great misery to humanity. Long term thinking is good, right? If you believe in the eventual probability of those doomsday scenarios, and you value the…
> I see no moral fault here. Why do you appoint morality a higher ground than rationality? Edit: Typo
I didn't. Confusing comment.
Well-meaning anti-nuclear activists have reasoned incorrectly, but that doesn't mean they should be shamed. Shame is not the appropriate way to correct somebody who has reasoned incorrectly. Shaming them is counterproductive since they know themselves to have good intentions. If you want to bring them around to your point of view, you should use rational arguments.
Use shaming tactics against those who know they've done wrong, like those paid to lie by coal companies. They actually have something to be ashamed of.
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But they produces nuclear wast and a melt down could devastate wide regions. Glad that this will all be over soon. I was a victim of the Chernobyl fallout myself, and would not like to experience this again.
Nuclear waste is tiny and contained. It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is. Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work. Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are.
> It kills no one when handled correctly, which it is.
This is not true. The German nuclear industry did not even manage to store low and intermediate level radioactive waste even remotely safely. Here is a report from July 2022 about the failure from German public television: https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell... The report is only availablöe in German, but you may run the accompanying documentation through the translator of your choice, to learn what happened.
> Coal and gas plants produce pollution that kills thousands every year, and that's how it's supposed to work.
Wrong alternative. We need 100% renewable.
> Meltdowns are next to impossible at correctly designed and built plants, which the German ones are.
People like you would have said that about Japan too, before 2011, and actively ignore what happend in Harrisburg in 1979 or Sellafield in 1957.
Re: Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about highly toxic soil here. Soil doesn't stay where it is, it moves with water and wind. You have to fix it, somehow. Just putting a bit of warning tape around it doesn't cut it. This isn't a theoretical point, either, wild mushrooms are still unsafe to eat in some parts of central Europe, almost four decades after Tchernobyl. The whole Fukushima disaster is another lesson in the prevention paradox. W…
No its not actually highly toxic and not actually very dangerous at all. A false level of danger has been assigned to radiation and its risk, mostly because of bad science in the 1970s. This mushrooms are still unsafe stuff is mostly a myth. What's correct is that these mushrooms still measure over the arbitrary level set government regulation during the height of panic about nuclear. > We see low death and disease n…
I can read all the science about how nuclear material in the soil is safe, but also I can't in good conscience let my toddler roll around in it and put it in her mouth. You need 100% buy in from parents who will be raising their children there.
Japan has removed the top ~8 inches of topsoil from the affected areas around fukashima, I think that is really impressive, but even then I would never allow my family to move there for any reason.
That said, I'm generally in favor of nuclear. I just don't want my kid rolling around in contaminated soil.