Summary
A new Innofact poll shows 55% of Germans support returning to nuclear power, a divisive issue influencing coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and SPD.
While 36% oppose the shift, support is strongest among men and in southern and eastern Germany.
About 22% favor restarting recently closed reactors; 32% support building new ones.
Despite nuclear support, 57% still back investment in renewables. The CDU/CSU is exploring feasibility, but the SPD and Greens remain firmly against reversing the nuclear phase-out, citing stability and past policy shifts.
Killing nuclear energy in Germany was the greatest success of FSB up to the point of planting an asset right in the middle of the Oval Office.
Germany shot itself in the foot when it turned away from nuclear…
Been saying this for years.
The problem is the power grid essentially being divided by north and south, it’s a mess. They needed to fix that before taking nuclear off-grid.
Southern countries (Spain and Portugal) have a lot of wind and hydro (and soon solar) power to spare. But somehow some “actors” are cutting them off from the rest of the European power grid. Looking at you France, your greedy bastards!
There’s nothing more to come. Nuclear power is slow and uneconomical.
Joe Kaeser, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens Energy: “There isn’t a single nuclear power plant in the world that makes economic sense,” he said on the ARD program Maischberger on November 27, 2024.
https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/farbebekennen-weidel-faktencheck-100.html?at_medium=mastodon
A fact check by the Fraunhofer Institute on nuclear energy states: “For example, around €2.5 billion would have to be raised to cover the nuclear waste generated. Overall, considerable short-term investments would be required.” (for the construction of a new power plant)
I also have the real cost of building a new reactor in mind when thinking of Germany getting back into nuclear.
Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.
If the government builds this with the aim of supplying cheap energy to people and industry with no profit margin then does this all matter?
The government spends large sums of money on this that and the other and the return of investment on these things are obscure or manifest over longer time horizons like building infrastructure etc
I am not against renewables, just to say that. I could not have too many windmills etc and the arguments against them are unconvincing.
Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.
No, it’s not about privatized groups. Even the government has limited money (they can print more, but that leads to inflation). This means the money should be spent efficiently, so we get the most out of it. Nuclear is - by far - the most expensive form of energy we have. We can build more renewables + storage with the same money.
Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.
The only way to make an expensive energy source cheap is by subsidizing it. We’ll get more out of the same amount of money if we build cheap energy sources.
I have been working in decomissioning npps in germany for over a decade now which is why I feel so strongly about the knee-jerk conservative BS. no, there are not -a million ways- to make waste from nuclear power plants safe. even material released from regulations (concrete from decomissioned buildings for example or soil from the ground) has some residual radioactive particles and just like alcohol in pregnancies: there is no safe amount of exposure to radiation, just a lower risk of provoking potentially fatal genetic mutation that european regulators deem acceptable. but that in and of itself is not really problematic. It is just that we cannot assume ideal conditions for running these plants. while relatively safe during a well monitored and maintained period in the power producing state of a npp that changes radically if things go south. Just look at what happened to the zhaporizhia powerplant in ukraine they actively attacked a nuclear site! And all the meticulous precautions go out the window if a bunch of rogues decide to be stupid - just because. and tbf whatever mess the release of large amounts of radioactive particles does to our environment, economy and society i would rather not find out. as others have laid out here, there are safer and better suiting alternatives that are not coal.
This is just straight up fear mongering. Say what you will about the economics, but the idea that there’s no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don’t know, but presumably it’s okay in some amounts since you’re getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).
The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.
The idea that NPPs are some unsafe technology just waiting to explode is dramatic and untrue.
You’re the first person to mention exploding here. GP was saying that they make for a good target in war time to turn into a dirty bomb, either intentionally or not.
…but the idea that there’s no safe amount of radiation is ridiculous (we don’t know, but presumably it’s okay in some amounts since you’re getting radiation doses every day even not living near anything nuclear).
“We don’t know”??? Sorry, but we do know.
There’s no 100% safe level because any level carries some risk. Higher levels means higher risk.
Background radiation has some risk, but it’s a risk we accept. X-rays, plane flights, etc all have increased risk (hence people exposed to lots of x-rays wearing leads) but we accept them. Material from decommissioned nuclear plants is way higher on this scale.
Nuclear power has downsides as well as positives. Depending on your perspective (e.g. do you work cleaning up the aftermath, or just benefitting from the energy) one will outweigh the other.
Okay I didn’t understand OPs point I suppose. Worth nothing that they are designed to withstand airplane hits.
There’s no 100% safe level because any level carries some risk.
Actually we don’t know that and there’s no valid empirical evidence to support that claim. We only have data at moderate to high levels. There’s a big gap between walked passed a container of level waste and got impacted by a nuclear destination.
there is no safe amount of exposure to radiation,
Here’s how I know you’re a lying piece of shit.
There is literally a massive, unshielded nuclear reactor in the sky every single day.
We ARE nuclear waste.
No need for name calling. I am an engineer specialized in radiation protection. Hell i actively work at nuclear sites on a daily basis. why would i lie? the underlying principle of the ‘acceptable risk’ i am talking about is called ‘alara’ - as low as reasonably achievable.
on another note: i am convinced that Staying uneducated and even actively manipulating those who dont know better is ridiculously destructive to our society. Please don’t do that.
So as an engineer myself, airplanes are vastly more dangerous than nuclear power.
Cars even more so.
The issue is regulation, but the US has never had a nuclear accident that caused deaths in our history, and neither has France which is basically running half of Europe off its nuclear plants.
This is fear-mongering, plain and simple.
Russia obviously has killed many people, but they killed millions of people from not having food, they don’t consider death a risk, it’s just part of life.
The rest of the world? Engineers are easily capable of making the craziest things safe, again, see air-travel which has more risks by orders of magnitude.
Early planes crashed all the time, and early reactor designs were very dangerous.
That’s why us engineers are so absolutely awesome, we don’t stop making things better.
We have an almost indefinite source of energy below our feet and almost nobody talks about. Screw nuclear, go geothermal
It’s not an either-or.
We need as many sources of energy as possible to increase the available supply and reduce the cost.
usually i would agree to the “increase supply to lower the cost” story, but in the case of energy it’s a bit different, because the Energy market uses the merit order principle, which means that whenever the nuclear reactors run, electricity is just as expensive as if nuclear reactors were the only source of electricity, and if they don’t run, only then prices drop.
so, you’re only getting cheaper prices by not needing nuclear energy. but, for nuclear plants, building them is a huge part of the cost, and that still has to be paid by somebody, even if they aren’t used later on to produce electricity.
add to that that construction is typically heavily subsidized by taxes, which means if you’re not using them, it’s just a huge burden on the taxpayers.
I would usually accept. But looking at the cost of production and how the pricing is set (highest price sets the bar), nuclear is the worst. Its so expensive that no supplier even wants to take the grants to build it. A waste of money… building storage capacities and evolving smart grids would be better investments.
Said like someone who has never encountered the concept of opportunity costs.
Maybe Thorium reactors but not that other shit that poisons everything for millenia.
I generally agree, given that geothermal and solar keep getting cheaper, and now cost less than nuclear or are at least competitive, but nuclear plants do more than just provide energy. Where do you think medical isotopes come from?
If that’s the only point you have for nuclear power we have more in common than you think. And I’m sure there a ways to do that another specialised way.
Atomic transmutation is never easy, and the only thing that really scales is a nuclear reactor. And not just any nuclear reactor will do - breeder reactors are the only ones that make it in any quantity. If you want to make this using a cyclotron or with centrifuges, a lot of the diagnoses and treatments we take for granted today will be almost completely inaccessible and only available to the very wealthy.
Doesn’t work everywhere.
55% is a small majority. But nothing to turn a train around. Things are set in motion.
55% is a small majority
Laughs in Brexit
Due to an absolutely comical amount of disinformation on the topic. People are absolutely clueless about the potential costs in time and money.
That was mostly when they were rushing to shut down nuclear plants. Getting them operational again will be insane cost opposed to them keep on running like before.
You can’t get them running again. They’re gone.
Even before nuclear power was the most expensive type in the energy mix iirc.
We’re not saving the world by always choosing the cheapest option, that’s how we got here
No one is talking about building new coal plants or similar. Comparing good low carbon options, nuclear is still very expensive.
Exactly. If you only go by kw/euro spent then you end up tearing down wind turbines to expand coal mines which Germany has already done.
If you go by the actual environmental cost and sustainability, specifically carbon use and land use ar square meter/kw, nuclear becomes so “cheap” you have to ask if anyone who is opposed to it cares about future generations still having a habitable planet and living in a civilization that hasn’t collapse into the pre-industrial.
We need nuclear to be the backbone of our future same as we need wind and solar as renewables to supplement and offer quick expansion and coverage of energy needs as our demands continue to rise.
yes even coal is “cheaper” than nuclear once you disregard polution
once you disregard polution
Including radioactive waste, which coal produces significantly more of than fission power.
The costs in both time and money to build nuclear are due to regulations and NIMBY legal stuff, and not actually relating to the technology itself being built. If they can use some of the same locations then that should help
Building, running, maintaining and decommissioning fission plants is so unfathomably expensive on the taxpayer its not even believable. They are also super prone to war issues because they are so centralized. With a few attacks you can take out most of the energy supply of a country relying heavily on nuclear power. Good luck trying to take out all the island capable solar installations and every wind turbine.
If someone attacks Germany’s nuclear power plants the world as we know it won’t exist because nuclear weapons will launch ravaging most of the world.
Also you don’t need to attack every single solar panel, just the power distribution centers
As you can see in Ukraine, there is still absolutely potential for non nuclear weapon based war in Europe.
Except Germany is in a formal treaty with France and the UK who both have nuclear weapons
Arguably that makes nuclear plants safer, because attacking nations won’t want to bomb them and risk escalating to a nuclear war. They have no problem bombing power stations and oil refineries, though.
that’s a very whacky argument though
Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs. The make small scale nuclear reactors as well. And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad
Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs.
Which is almost nowhere. There can be intermittent issues, but those can be overcome with a larger network and grid-level storage.
The make small scale nuclear reactors as well.
Which are less efficient, so even more expensive.
And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad
Not sure what your argument here is, because no matter what kind of energy production you’re using, bombing a city is always bad. But it’s much easier to cause great harm with nuclear than renewable generators.
But renewables aren’t being replaced with this, fossil fuels are. The grid level storage is significant and requires significant mining and upkeep for that, and it’s very inefficient. We need blended energy sources for safety, with a mix of water, wind, wave, solar, geothermal, and nuclear
No, renewables have to be replaced by nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly expensive (the most expensive form of energy we have). If you don’t run it at capacity 100% of the time, it’s even more expensive.
All that money can either produce a small amount of energy if we go with nuclear, or a larger amount of energy if we go with renewables.
Grid-level storage is getting more and more efficient - a couple of years ago, the combined cost of renewables + storage got smaller than the cost of nuclear. Nuclear is still getting more expensive, whereas renewables + storage is getting cheaper and cheaper.
That’s because nuclear is arbitrarily forced to be expensive due to regulations and legal stuff. If that wasn’t included in the price itself, it would be significantly cheaper. However, nuclear took such a big hit politically that it increased costs as less plants were built. It’s not so much that renewables are per se cheaper, but rather than nuclear gets artifically inflated. Further, I’m not opposed to renewables, I just think nuclear is needed in addition to renewables since it is better for carbon emissions and we have a carbon issue. It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.
Again, weird you don’t mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.
Sure, nuclear could be much cheaper! But it would also be much less safe, because all the regulations and “legal stuff” are what forces the people running the plant to run it in a safe way. The same goes for renewables, but if renewables fail, they don’t contaminate the surrounding area for decades or centuries, so there are far fewer of these regulations. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide examples of unnecessary regulations that make nuclear so much more expensive. Show us the numbers.
It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.
There are many great ways to deploy renewables so they support the environment. Have you looked at the environmental impact of the mining required for nuclear plants? The impact they have on the rivers they use for cooling, and so on?
Again, weird you don’t mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.
It’s pretty weird that “renewables” somehow doesn’t include those for you.
There is basically no place in the world where you cant use either wind or solar.
Yes, there are, especially if you don’t want to deforest land. And wind and solar and not constant sources. A mix of sources are needed. That you havent mentioned geothermal or wave energy shows that you’re kinda out of your depth here. I’ve gone to many engineering seminars about this, we must have a mix of energy sources and we must use nuclear if our goal is to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Other sources of energy all emit too much carbon.
I’ve gone to many engineering seminars
Wow what kinda propaganda seminars are you sitting in? Did they also tell you that “just one more lane” would fix traffic? Wind turbines recoup their entire production and installation carbon emissions in a few months. PV panels in like a year.
I attended an engineering college for my engineering degree.
And no, we specifically discussed this about lanes and trains and buses etc. Just like we discussed nuclear energy.
How do they sequester the carbon they emit? Do you have a link to an article that can explain what you’re saying? Or are you saying its carbon emissions are less than coal or gas, which is different than not emitting anything at all?
If you wanna look into it, the term you need to search for is “life cycle assessment”.
This is a kind of report usually by some kind of government agency that creates a very detailed list of materials and energy required to manufacture, transport, install, operate and maintain an installation.
This is then compared against existing electricity production systems that will be replaced by the new one to calculate how long it takes to make up the initial cost both monetarily and emissions wise.
The resulting time frame will drastically vary depending on the supply chain, location, grid capacity, storage capacity and such. The following is a plot from the linked study which combines results from many different studies. They typical lifetime of one of these turbines is 20 years, so you are looking at a ~20x payback factor if it replaces fossil generation (coal/gas/etc).
It’s not expensive because they are actually particularly hard to make though. They’re expensive because we made them expensive. There’s so many requirements and restrictions on them that aren’t on other power sources. Some of that’s good, but a lot is designed by dirty energy to keep them in business. They drive up the cost of nuclear and then get to say they’re cheaper.
This, and people ignore the carbon emissions part. Nuclear is one of the least carbon emitting sources of energy which is vital to addressing climate change
restrictions on them that aren’t on other power sources
Yeah i wonder why that could be lmao. Nothing ever went wrong with fission power plants right?
Please, speak with or read info from lawyers who are nuclear engineers who went into regulations. Look at what they do and how pointless some of this paperwork and back and forth is. Listen to their stories about some of the legal shenanigans that have gone on at sites to prevent builds, not based on genuine concern but out of financial concern.
As I said, some is necessary. However, a lot is just to make it not viable to protect dirty energy. Nuclear fission is one of the safest sources of energy, including the disasters and clean energy. It’s incredibly safe, and has only gotten safer. The chance of a meltdown are damn near zero now, and even if one happens there’s little chance for significant issues.
Meanwhile coal is spewing out radioactive waste constantly and has very little restrictions.
Another big factor is that every plant is effectively a completely custom design. Because of how few nuclear plants are constructed, every new one tends to incorporate technological advancements to enhance safety or efficiency. The design also has to be adapted to the local climate and land layout. This makes every single plant effectively one of a kind.
It also tends to be built by different contractors, involving different vendors and electric utilities every time. Other countries have done better here (e.g. China and France) mostly due to comprehensive government planning: plopping down lots of reactors of the same design, done by the same engineers. Although these countries are not fully escaping cost increases either.
You are completely correct that regulation is also a big factor. Quality assurance and documentation requirements are enormously onerous. This article does a pretty decent job explaining the difficulties.
getting back in to nuclear would be as foolish as dropping it in the first place. i swear i hate my government sometimes. a history of bad decisions.
lacht in nuklearabfall der in der asse das grundwasser verseucht!!
They asked 1000 people - not that representative and most of the German don‘t want a return to the 60s or 70s - at least no people voting for the backward-looking CDU or the Neo-Nazis AfD. And well - Southern and Eastern Germany. No miracle, unfortunately. 🤷🏼♂️
Statisticians have found that for many types of surveys, a sample size of around 1,000 people is the sweet spot—regardless of if the population size is 100,000 or 100M.
Wouldn’t it depend a lot on how many of those people consume the exact same information sources on topics like this where the average person has no real clue at all to make their own judgement?
If you want to find out what the average person thinks, polls from 1000 to 5000 people work. If you want to educate the average person or get the opinions of already-educated people, those are different tasks.
Chances that you randomly pick 1000 people that all consume the exact same media is pretty low I guess
Considering a lot of polls are conducted in ways that are self-limiting (e.g. voluntary over landline phones) it is not that absurd that they might all (or a significant enough percentage to screw with results) would read e.g. the same major newspaper (e.g. BILD in Germany has a lot of misinformation).
There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power. It’s green, it’s safe, it’s incredibly efficient, the fuel is virtually infinite, and the waste can be processed in a million different ways to make it not dangerous.
Well yes there is a very good argument against nuclear and that is that it replaces solar energy.
solar energy might have been expensive in the past but now it’s the cheapest form of energy in history. we needed an absence of nuclear in the past to have a motivation to develop green, safe, efficient energy. and solar is the best way to do that.
i also ask you to consider the future. solar energy gets cheaper the more is deployed of it, so it will get even cheaper in the future. we have seen enormous price drops for transistors (computers) in the past, and solar panels are semiconductors, just like transistors are semiconductors. who says that we wouldn’t also see similar price drops for solar energy in the future? maybe solar panels will be cheap as paper in the future.
There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power.
Ahh, you gotta keep in mind: useful idiots.
Even Japan is restarting their reactors
Solar and wind are great, but major industrialized nations will need some nuclear capacity.
It’s going to happen sooner or later.
The question is just about how long we delay it, with extra emissions and economic depression in the mean time.
Japan doesn’t have a huge amount of choice in energy generation. Off shore wind doesn’t work as the water is too deep. On shore wind doesn’t have the space or geography either. Solar works, but their weather isn’t ideal. Geothermal…possibly being near fault lines but their not like Iceland with a small population to supply. I believe locations for hydro are limited too.
Nuclear gives them energy independence and fits.
This exactly. You need a reliable source of fuel for the baseline, which is where nuclear energy can supplant fossil fuels instead of or in addition to relying on batteries.
No, nuclear is awful as a baseline since you can’t turn it off and back on quickly
You’re absolutely correct, and few people realise this. They think “baseline = stable power”, but that’s not what you need. You need a quick and cheap way to scale up production when renewables don’t produce enough. On a sunny, windy day, renewables already produce more than 100% of needs in some countries. At that point, the ‘baseline’ needs to shut down so that this cheap energy can be used instead. The baseline really is a stable base demand, but the supply has to be very flexible instead (due to the relative instability of solar and wind, the cheapest sources available).
Nuclear reactors can shut down quite quickly these days, but starting them back up is slow. But worse, nuclear is quite expensive, and maintaining a plant in standby mode not producing anything is just not economically feasible. Ergo, nuclear is terrible for a baseline power source (bar any future technological breakthroughs).
I’m not the kind to hate on nuclear power itself, but let’s not assume it’s perfect either. There are good reasons against nuclear power, its just not the usual reasons raised by people.
The cost and time effort needed for building one plant is one drawback.
The fact that you can’t say “let’s turn off the nuclear reactor now that we have enough renewables and later today we start it again when the sunlight is over”. It’s a terrible energy source to supply for extra demand needed without perfect planning.
Nowadays, nuclear is not so worth it in general, not because of fearmongering about the dangers (an old plant badly upkept is a danger, independent of what energy source you use, but specially for nuclear plants). Ideally a combination of different renewables would be best, with some energy storage to be used as backup, plus proper sharing of the resources between different places. There’s always sun somewhere, there’s always wind somewhere, …
It’s not perfect, but to forego nuclear energy while still burning fossil fuels is retarded.
Nobody is arguing for fossil fuels here.
So if our energy needs are not being met even while burning fossil fuels, why would you argue against nuclear energy which further reduces the supply of available energy?
Nuclear keeps us on the teet of fossils fuels for longer than switching to renewables. Nuclear takes too long to build. Renewables can come online incrementally displacing fossil fuels far sooner. It drops the rate of damage faster.
If we wait for nuclear plants that haven’t even been green lot yet the accumulated damage will be massive.
Yeah. You’re just showing us that you lack a fundamental understanding of how the power grid works.
Nuclear keeps us on the teet of fossils fuels for longer than switching to renewables.
It doesn’t, but I’d like to see you explain how.
Nuclear takes too long to build.
No it doesn’t. We still need more energy sources.
Renewables can come online incrementally displacing fossil fuels far sooner.
Our energy needs are not being met right now. I can’t stress this enough: you simply do not have even a basic level of understanding about how the power grid works.
It drops the rate of damage faster.
Yeah. You’re clueless.
As opposed to thinking we could replace fossil fuels with nuclear power faster than we can replace them with renewables which is obviously a totally sane belief given how large construction projects are going… /s
It’s more expensive than the alternatives, and comes with additional downsides. There is no good reason to be pro nuclear, unless you need a lot of power for a long time in a tight space. So a ship or a space station for example.
NGL, I dig the idea of Sodium plants:
Not sure how practical they are outside the general idea, but it looks promising.
Considering the current political climate I don’t think the world would look at Germany building breeder reactors (thats what these are, even if they desperately try to avoid that term) and just say “Great idea!” ;).
Jokes aside, breeders need at least one more generation of research/demo plants to be really commercially viable. Afaik all breeders so far had less than 50% uptime and none could avoid sodium fires. They would solve quite a few fuel problems tho conisering you can “burn” recycled U238 in them.
Personally I would prefer Thorium cycle plants, but those are even further off.
For Germany right now I don’t see much sense in building new current tech reactors. For the same tax money we would need to subsidize these plants, we could build so much more renewable (and storage) capacity which would result in a faster reduction of ghg emissions.
It’s incredibly expensive when all costs over the entire construction period, operating period, dismantling period and storage period for nuclear waste are taken into account.
As for coal, it’s even more expensive when it kills off the planet.
No doubt but we have other viable options.
How does the cost compare to the starting and operating a coal mine?
What about oil wells and refineries?
We’ve got other alternatives. I was not proposing to build coal mines.
It’s not a binary nuclear or coal choice.
Take 50 billion Euros, you want to invest in clean energy and have the biggest impact you can. You don’t buy one nuclear power plant, that’s for sure. You probably build multiple wind farms (around 10bn each) which, while intermittent, will each provide similar total energy over a year.
This, it’s also pretty much the ONLY technology we have that can be near carbon neutral over time (mainly releasing carbon in the cement to make the plant, then to a lesser extent, mining to dig up and refine material, and transport of workers and goods).
The cost associated with nuclear is due to regulation and legal issues and not relating to the cost to build the actual plant itself so much. There are small scale reactors and many options. Yes it should be used wisely but we can’t keep burning fossil fuels.
There’s nothing green, cheap, or safe about nuclear power. We’ve had three meltdowns already and two of them have ruined their surrounding environments:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Mining for fuel ruins the water table:
A Uranium-Mining Boom Is Sweeping Through Texas (contaminating the water table) https://www.wired.com/story/a-uranium-mining-boom-is-sweeping-through-texas-nuclear-energy/
Waste disposal, storage, and reprocessing are prohibitively expensive:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/
Let’s see here… nuclear meltdowns have damaged the environments around the few plants that have experienced them.
Burning fossil fuels has damaged our entire planet…
Now list all the fossil fuels related incidents.
Nuclear + renewables is the way to go to stop the climate crisis in the foreseeable future.
People really don’t understand that climate change is worse for life on this planet than a million Fukushima accidents.
And ironically enough, Fukushima and Chernobyl have not been that bad for plant and animal life. The area around Chernobyl is thriving because most humans are gone.
Sources: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
It also caused a bunch of Russian soldiers to get sick because they dug holes in the ground. It isn’t a nuclear paradise, and I’m not interested in Chernobyl-grown food, but it isn’t a complete wasteland, either.
I was talking specifically about plant and animal life.
It’s obviously not a paradise, but what I mean is, ionising radiation is literally less harmful to them than human presence. That’s pretty bonkers to think about.
Leave that zone alone, let nature take over again and make it a monument to human hubris.I don’t think I talked about growing food in irradiated ground though? But, we currently are growing food in polluted ground thanks to fossil fuels (microplastics, coal dust, oil leaks, fracking in some backwards ass countries, etc.).
So how are burrowing animals doing? I’ve seen pretty pictures of deer and trees, how are the rabbits and foxes? What are their lifespans compared to those in other regions?
Just because the animals don’t look like cutscenes from The 100 doesn’t mean their life is idyllic, or even better than elsewhere. And all those animals are eating food grown in irradiated ground. Now, whether that’s better or worse than microplastics and fossil fuel waste and leakage is another interesting question.
Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown, which may sound close to an actual meltdown, it’s not even close in terms of danger.
Fukushima failed because the plants were old and not properly upkept. Had they followed the guidelines for keeping the plant maintained, it would not have happened.
That’s not really the fault of nuclear power.
Chernobyl was also partially caused by lack of adherence to safety measures, but also faulty plant design.
I’d say, being generous, only one of those three events says anything about the safety of nuclear power, and even then, we have come a very long way.
So one event… Ever.
Chernobyl shouldn’t have happened due to safety measures, yet it did. Fukushima shouldn’t have happened, yet it did. The common denominator is human error, but guess who’ll be running any other nuclear power plants? Not beavers.
Fukushima’s reactors were extremely old, even at the time. We’re not even talking about the same technology. Shit has come a very long way.
Sure, and the next catastrophe will have some good reason too, yet it will happen due to human error and greed.
Unlike the complete safety of fossil fuels.
Because everyone knows there’s literally only fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nothing else.
That must be why you people are suggesting to turn the extremely old German reactors back on that have had limited maintenance under the assumption that they would be turned off for decades now.
That must be why you people are suggesting to turn the extremely old German reactors back on
Is that what I did? Well that’s news to me!
lel mongo
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “Green” until we have a better way of disposing the waste that doesn’t involve creating new warning signs that can still be read and understood 10,000 years from now. :)
If it’s still a danger in 5,000 years, that’s not “green”. :)
Great story on the signage though!
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time
I’ve always preferred the IPCC terminology of “low-carbon”. Emphasizes that all power sources have carbon and other emissions at some point in their lifecycle. They also levelize the emissions based on energy produced over the expected lifespan of the power generation station/solar panel/dam/wind turbine/etc, and nuclear power is down there with solar, wind, geo, and hydro. Waste must be dealt with, and the best disposal method is reprocessing so you don’t have to store it.
Nuclear semiotics is fascinating. I was very excited when I came across the Federal Disposal Field in Fallout 76 and found that Bethesda used the “field of spikes” design.
Yeah they need all the energy they can get to manufacture bombs and give them to Israel.
Anything but making people consume less
Nuclear is the way of the future. Its between that and fossil fuels realistically.
I say we bury the waste in your garden then
waste is a much smaller problem than co2 emmissions. Waste can be put in water which completely shields it.
Then it should pose no problem to put it in your garden for a million years when it decayed enough to be less dangerous when we build you a pool? You have to make sure to maintain the pool until it’s completely safe though.
Talk about arguing in bad faith.
Do you honestly expect rational adults to take your ‘point’ seriously? Like, come on.
The same shit you’re saying could be said about landfills. “Let me just put the trash in YOUR garden!”
I’m not, I’m just trying to make it understandable on a smaller scale. I wouldn’t want to poison my garden much less in a greater scale any other place.
And before you say anything, coal sucks too.
You literally are nuclear waste.
It’s really sad to see that evidently more than half of the german population have an opinion on something which they have little to no understanding of. It’s frustrating what misinformation can achieve.
Nuclear power might work for some nations, but there is just no way it makes sense in germany. All previous plants are in dire need of renovation and will be hugely expensive to bring back up and running, and a new one is just as overly optimistic, as major construction projects routinely go far over budget here, and nuclear energy is already not price competitive with renewables. Nobody wants waste storage, let alone a power plant near them, and it would take years until a plant is even producing energy. By that time, it might already be redundant, because renewables and energy storage will be cheaper and more ubiquitous. there is just no way nuclear power makes sense for germany.
I don’t mind having a power plant near me.
It’s a minuscule risk compared to what we deal with every day with cars.
You’re more likely to get cancer from eating red meat.
Now living under power lines? That’s dangerous.
It’s not only the risk factor, people routinely oppose wind turbines just because they dislike how they look. and huge cooling towers are not exactly subtle.
but the ‘risk factor’ is a total non-issue in regards to making this decision. nuclear power could be 100% safe and it would still simply be far too expensive to be worth it.
deleted by creator
Nuclear power is great. But I do wonder if they might be targets in a war with Russia or something. Can they be prevented from meltdown in the case of a missile strike?
Huh? Modern nuclear power plants automatically stop the reaction. In addition to other safety features monitoring things like temperature, radiation, etc. for automatic shutoff, the rods are held in place via electromagnetism. In the event of a power loss, the reaction will stop because the rods fall out of place. (This may just be one type; other modern reactors have ways of automatically stopping the reaction in the event of a power loss.)
The main reaction can be stopped within seconds, but the secondary reaction cannot. If the reactor isn’t sufficiently cooled by running water through it, it will meltdown due to the secondary reactions.
Those are old designs, new ones basically stop once the water is removed.
Hence the ‘negative void coefficient’, modern designs lose reactivity as the water is removed.
Look at pebble bed and other designs.
As far as I know (I’m not an expert), negative void coefficient only affects the fission reaction, i.e. the controlled splitting of uranium atoms. The uranium atoms split into smaller unstable atoms, which decays over time causing heat. If the decay heat isn’t removed, the core will melt.
Pebble Bed Reactors seem to be generation IV reactors, and I don’t think there are any generation IV reactors in commercial use as of today. Again, my knowledge is limited, but I believe most reactors in commercial use are some kind of water cooled, water moderated reactors. For example, European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) is one of the latest designs commissioned in commercial use, and that design includes 4 emergency coolant systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-PM
China has the pbr in production as modular reactors.
When the reactor temperature rises, the atoms in the fuel move rapidly, causing Doppler broadening. The fuel then experiences a wider range of neutron speeds. Uranium-238, which forms the bulk of the uranium, is much more likely to absorb fast or epithermal neutrons at higher temperatures. This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause fission, and reduces power. Doppler broadening therefore creates a negative feedback: as fuel temperature increases, reactor power decreases. All reactors have reactivity feedback mechanisms. The pebble-bed reactor is designed so that this effect is relatively strong, inherent to the design, and does not depend on moving parts. This negative feedback creates passive control of the reaction process.
Thus PBRs passively reduce to a safe power-level in an accident scenario. This is the design’s main passive safety feature
The west is irrationally afraid, but China understands nuclear is inherently safer than fossil fuels after having lost thousands to pollution.
Depends on the reactor type. I know the CANDU reactors that Canada uses are very difficult to meltdown since they use unenriched uranium fuel, and if the deuterium moderator disappears due to a missile strike or something, the reaction just fizzles instead of running away.
