Germany extends lifetime of all 3 remaining nuclear plants

Post by tuatoru » Tue, Oct 18, 2022, 2:32 AM UTC

dependsontheq wrote: post #87

While 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…

Post by DarknessFalls » Tue, Oct 18, 2022, 2:57 AM UTC

karamanolev wrote: post #172

avgcorrection wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FWIW, I'm a fan of nucear, but ... they don't have to counter that argument. It doesn't have to be earthquakes - it can be 1 of 100 problems. Japan knew they have to deal with earthquakes and didn't. What should make people more comfortable that Germany will be able to safeguard against their known risks?

Post by hn_go_brrrrr » Tue, Oct 18, 2022, 4:07 AM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #293

dependsontheq wrote: post #87

While 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…

> Fukushima gave the debate another spin „If Japan can’t control the technology nobody can“. That's an understandable reaction. But a better reaction would have been "what lessons did we learn?". After the 2008 financial crisis, the financial regulators around the world gathered at the 2009 Pittsburgh Summit [1] to see what can be done to improve the resiliency of the global financial markets. They came up with a Sta…

Post by Archelaos » Tue, Oct 18, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

hbgl wrote: post #300

Archelaos wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 docu…

So since the 80s it is known that water enters the nuclear waste storage locations and how many people have died? None. Okay but how many people have faced any direct adverse consequences from it? Also none. And that isn't even a proper counter argument because the waste was not handled correctly in this instance.

Post by shrimpx » Tue, Oct 18, 2022, 4:48 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #264

JohnBooty wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should make people more comfortable that Germany will be able to safeguard against their known risks? The safety of nuclear power plants isn't exactly some great unknown. There are ~450 plants currently operating in the world, with an average age of multiple decades. Plus all the ones that have been retired. That's a lot of data. You don't really have to take anybody's word for it. They're safe. They are not zer…

The problem is when they go bad, it gets really bad. We were extremely lucky with Chernobyl that young men sacrificed themselves, else a large chunk of Europe would be uninhabitable. We were extremely lucky with Fukushima all the radiated water just went into the ocean. When it was going down there was nothing we could do but stand back and watch how bad it got. Of course on a regular day nuclear is safe, but every n…