Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sergarr]

Because nuclear power is incredibly unpopular. That's the only reason. Popular belief is that we'll be much better off without it, we can make do with green energy and the whole world is gonna follow our example. Now, the last two things are obviously not true, but it will take time for people to realize that. Since energy is getting more and more expensive and since we do indeed rely more on coal, which isn't environment-friendly at all, opinions could change, but anti-nuclearism is really a deep felt sentiment here.
BTW the nuclear opt-out was already a done deal before Merkel, it was just supposed to happen later (in 2030 I think?), when technology was ready. Merkel initially wanted to extend that time, but completely switched sides (with popular opinion) after Fukushima. Another example of the blind activism I mentioned earlier, we are not technologically ready to lose nuclear energy (yet), but the people want it, so we just do it.

Also interesting, before the government announced it's nuclear phase-out, support for continuing nuclear power and installing new plants was at 70% ((that was 2007)). The latest numbers, just before the Fukushima disaster, put it at a 44% for, 44% against equal split, showing once more that people will follow government policy , rather than vice versa.

But yeah, Germany isn't ready for the Energiewende, which has so far been a complete failure. Reliance on coal is higher than ever, with old, polluting plants being put back into service, as cleaner gas plants go bankrupt(Intermittent production hours cause them to run at a loss). Most of Germanies hydro-energy storage facilities have gone bankrupt as well. Meanwhile, massive power disbalance in country is putting strain on the networks of neighbouring countries, which are all taking steps to install measures allowing them to disconnect their networks at moment notice. Additionally, the coal power is actively sabotaging renewable efforts in other countries, because when the windpower does work, all the coal powerplants start to export their power dirtcheap, undercutting cleaner powersources in other countries.

Also, energy prices in Germany are at an all time high, while the energy itself is cheaper than ever due to overcapacity.

Progressive and enlightened humanity in all its glory.

[XXSockXX]

Also interesting, before the government announced it's nuclear phase-out, support for continuing nuclear power and installing new plants was at 70% ((that was 2007)). The latest numbers, just before the Fukushima disaster, put it at a 44% for, 44% against equal split, showing once more that people will follow government policy , rather than vice versa.

70% seems way too high for 2007. The phase-out was initially decided upon by the Red-Green coalition around 2000, and at that time it felt much more like 50/50, with those opposing nuclear energy being very vocal of course. Installing new plants wasn't even on the table after that, all that was debated was to let the power plants run a few years longer.
The later number seems possible (though again, just for longer usage, not indefinite continuation), but public opinion shifted after Fukushima.
There are still some that want a shutdown "now".

It was a clever maneuver on Merkel's part though, at least politically. After Fukushima the Greens polled at almost 25%. In the 2013 election they were back down slight above 8%.

[10ebbor10]

My bad. It was a 61% opposition against nuclear phaseout. ((At least, I hope it was. Can't find my original source))

But anyway, the polls are a bit ambiguously phrased. After all, continuation of nuclear power can mean anything from new plants to life extension of old ones.

Edit: On another side note, the original argument still stands. In 1997, 1998, and 1999 there was a well over 70% majority in favour of nuclear power, and also a considerable margin for new nuclear power plants.

Edit 2: Anyway, Germany is going before the EU courts and such because of their immediate accelerated shut down. This could end up costing the German government a few billion in lost revenues, and an additional sum in compensation of lost profit.

Edit 3: The point of the failure of the Energiewende still stands. Their pre-shutdown low carbon energy mix was (IIRC) 22% nuclear, 18 % renewable*. They're aiming, for 2030, for 35-45% renewables. Ak, nothing happened. Except of course, that the energy prices have risen dramatically, and that the carbon part of the energy mix has become increasingly reliant on coal.

*Give or take a few percent

[XXSockXX]

Even 60% "feels" a bit too much, but then, as I mentioned, opponents have been very vocal, since the early 80's or so and increasingly so after Chernobyl '87. Especially nuclear waste has been an issue that mobilized massive demonstrations. Of course my gut feeling is not backed up by scientific data , but it "feels" like these polls might be slightly biased or not that representative. But then there are regional variations too, people living near nuclear plants or nuclear waste depots are more likely to be opposed and people living in areas that used to be dominated by the coal industry seem to prefer coal plants for obvious economic reasons.

The EU court thing doesn't surprise me much, the whole Energiewende seems rushed through without thinking about potential consequences. There are so many issues, like wind plants running for nothing because there are no transformators that can make their energy usable to the networks, heavy subsidation for solar energy that still doesn't prevent bankrupt firms (because Chinese production is still much cheaper) and so on. It wasn't really thought through at all. My electric bill has been constantly rising in the last 3 years, let's see how that influences people's opinion over time.
The most important argument is safety of course, but that does not do much for me, because where I live, the nearest nuclear plants are all in France, and the French certainly can't and won't shut them down.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, polls have noticed that people living near nuclear plants are more positive about nuclear energy, while people living near prospective nuclear plants/ storage sites are more negative. It's all about information, and knowledge. ((Other polls have also shown that people with lower education (and women) are more likely to be opposed*))

On a side note, you're getting more radiation from german coal plants than from france's nuclear installations, provided they don't blow one up.


*This is just silly statistics. No offense meant.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah, I was probably thinking of people living near nuclear waste depots. Just google "Gorleben". Or mention it to people if you want to hear a tirade.

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, the Uk governement plans to build a lot of nuclear plants.

Doubt it's real actually. That would be 86% of the Uk's power supply, which puts it well above baseload power supply. Nuclear can perform as load following energy supply(as happens in france), but it's problematic and cuts into cost-efficiency.

On a side note, the person who spots the fault in the quoted line gets a cookie. All information is found in the article.

The remarkable figure – 10 times the number the government is openly discussing – is revealed in documents submitted to the Department of Energy and Climate Change by one of its own advisory bodies.

[Graknorke]

People really don't understand how nuclear power works do they? The comments are just full of "It's going to meltdown and kill us all government is idiots".

[Ukrainian Ranger]

People really don't understand how XXXXXX works do they?

XXXXXX can be anything and answer is always the same; YES

[t. fortsorter]

The best way to solve the problem of people being against nuclear power is to subject them to nuclear power at, let's say, a hundred amperes and a kilovolt or a dozen, haha~
Silly Luddites, you'd think after the twentieth century came and went we would be done with them as a concept, much less a reasonably strong force in politics! Once I get elected as a monarch someplace, they will be one of the priorities~
You can give the deepest thanks you could possibly muster to the environmental organizations who while having a point in the early days of the technology decided that they are the Antichrist, worse even than Obama's Islamic Communism would be for one of the most extremist fun to speak with member of the Tea Party. Therefore, let them eat bolts! That's what Tesla would do, haha~

[Evil Knievel]

I think that nuclear power works, but evidently not when in the hands of ... i don't know who to blame, because that would be guessing, so i can only blame humans in general, and their way to make certain decisions is sometimes irresponsible.

Just study the Asse scandal which was clearly caused by certain people putting their own interests over safety, which happens all the time. Now, I guess living with a salt dome contaminating the water is possible, nothing exploded there. But things have exploded in the past because of irresponsibility and arrogance, or better said, no mechanism in place to control said human deficiencies. While we get better at engineering, it is hard to find evidence of more responsible behaviour of people in charge. Look at deep water horizon. Great. Nuclear is only special in that respect because it has meltdowns and causes contamination that cannot be cleaned up. A lot of other things are problematic as well and do cause problems. Not offering a solution here, but at least let me voice the opinion that there is some system problem, which maybe should be better at preventing these kinds of dangerous escapades through design, and that whatever we do, we know that with current way of doing things, accidents happen at all scales.

TL;DR: You tell me not to be cautious about nuclear, even though it is quite evident that accidents continue to happen?

[Sheb]

Of course accidents happen. They happen with every technology. Millions of people dies in cars every year, but we accept it as a reasonable cost. The fact is, nuclear is much better than its alternative. Even a huge mess-up like Fukushima didn't kill anyone. That's much better than coal, which is estimated to kill around 6000 people/year in Germany alone.

[10ebbor10]

Nuclear contaminations can be cleaned up. Even better, because it's based on the decay of radioactive elements, they clean up themselves. I mean, Fukushima is basically save right now.

In over 40 years of nuclear engineering there have been 2 serious incidents. Even if we take the largest estimates (excluding those from the anti-nuclear lobby*), we have about 10 000 deaths total. ((Realistic estimates state about 12000 cases of cancer.)) Honestly, that's a pretty good death per gigawat ratio. ((Better than all other energy sources, actually.))

*Because they amount to : everyone dies. And frankly Ukraine doesn't look death to me.

[miauw62]

Of course accidents happen. They happen with every technology. Millions of people dies in cars every year, but we accept it as a reasonable cost. The fact is, nuclear is much better than its alternative. Even a huge mess-up like Fukushima didn't kill anyone. That's much better than coal, which is estimated to kill around 6000 people/year in Germany alone.

Well, as a result of Fukushima a bunch of people will probably die to cancer or so. It's not really fair to say that it didn't kill anyone. It didn't kill anyone directly. But radiation doesn't tend to kill people directly. Alsooo, there was quite some enviromental damage caused by Fukushima. You can't exactly say that nuclear power plants don't cause damage to the enviroment, though
(However this is just semantics and doesn't invalidate the second part of your argument)

[10ebbor10]

Well, nuclear power plants might have made a net contribution to the environment. Chernobyl is a nice nature park know.

Additionally, most of those deaths will be due to cancers. Most animals have a much shorter livespan than ours, and are hence less likely to develop problems as a result of the incident.