Is Germany Ready To Lean Back Into Nuclear Power? (spiegel.de) 392
The German news magazine Der Spiegel spoke to a 54-year-old who had always been in favor of the company's plan to phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022. Until now — with fears about Russia curtailing supplies of natural gas.
And he's not the only one: A poll commissioned by DER SPIEGEL has revealed some rather shocking numbers. According to the survey carried out by the online polling firm Civey, only 22 percent of those surveyed are in favor of shutting down the three nuclear plants that are still in operation in Germany...as planned at the end of the year. Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed are in favor of continuing to operate the plants until the summer of 2023, a variant that is being discussed in the political sphere as a "stretch operation" — in other words, continuing to keep them online for a few months, but without the acquisition of new fuel rods. Even among Green Party supporters, a narrow majority favors this approach....
The answers suggest that the attitude of Germans toward nuclear power has changed significantly. Sixty-seven percent are in favor of continuing to operate the nuclear plants for the next five years, with only 27 percent opposed to it. The only group without a clear majority in favor of running the plants for the next five years are the supporters of the Green Party....
On the question of whether Germany should build new nuclear power plants because of the energy crisis, 41 percent of respondents answered "yes," meaning they favor an approach that isn't even up for debate in Germany. The results are astounding all around, especially compared with past surveys. Thirty-three years ago, a polling institute asked a similar question on behalf of DER SPIEGEL. At the time, only a miniscule 3 percent of respondents thought Germany should build new plants.
Officially, Germany is supposed to be transitioning to green energies, but these polling figures suggest that people may be interested in returning to the old energy status quo.... It had already become clear in recent years that support for the nuclear phaseout was already slowly crumbling. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has now accelerated this shift, calling into question many old certainties, or overturning them completely.... The energy security that people took for granted for decades in Germany has been shaken ever since Russia cut gas deliveries and costs rose.
The result being that an old German dogma now seems to be crumbling: the rejection of nuclear energy. Concerns are either being put on the backburner or are evaporating. Radiation from nuclear waste? Safety risks? Danger of large-scale disasters? Who cares. Those are things you worry about when you have working heat. Electricity first, then ethics.
Thanks to Slashdot reader atcclears for sharing the article
And he's not the only one: A poll commissioned by DER SPIEGEL has revealed some rather shocking numbers. According to the survey carried out by the online polling firm Civey, only 22 percent of those surveyed are in favor of shutting down the three nuclear plants that are still in operation in Germany...as planned at the end of the year. Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed are in favor of continuing to operate the plants until the summer of 2023, a variant that is being discussed in the political sphere as a "stretch operation" — in other words, continuing to keep them online for a few months, but without the acquisition of new fuel rods. Even among Green Party supporters, a narrow majority favors this approach....
The answers suggest that the attitude of Germans toward nuclear power has changed significantly. Sixty-seven percent are in favor of continuing to operate the nuclear plants for the next five years, with only 27 percent opposed to it. The only group without a clear majority in favor of running the plants for the next five years are the supporters of the Green Party....
On the question of whether Germany should build new nuclear power plants because of the energy crisis, 41 percent of respondents answered "yes," meaning they favor an approach that isn't even up for debate in Germany. The results are astounding all around, especially compared with past surveys. Thirty-three years ago, a polling institute asked a similar question on behalf of DER SPIEGEL. At the time, only a miniscule 3 percent of respondents thought Germany should build new plants.
Officially, Germany is supposed to be transitioning to green energies, but these polling figures suggest that people may be interested in returning to the old energy status quo.... It had already become clear in recent years that support for the nuclear phaseout was already slowly crumbling. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has now accelerated this shift, calling into question many old certainties, or overturning them completely.... The energy security that people took for granted for decades in Germany has been shaken ever since Russia cut gas deliveries and costs rose.
The result being that an old German dogma now seems to be crumbling: the rejection of nuclear energy. Concerns are either being put on the backburner or are evaporating. Radiation from nuclear waste? Safety risks? Danger of large-scale disasters? Who cares. Those are things you worry about when you have working heat. Electricity first, then ethics.
Thanks to Slashdot reader atcclears for sharing the article
Wait till winter (Score:5, Insightful)
The answers suggest that the attitude of Germans toward nuclear power has changed significantly.
Being cold and dark will do that.
Re:Wait till winter (Score:4, Insightful)
an old German dogma now seems to be crumbling: the rejection of nuclear energy
Rejecting nuclear power was always stupid and short-sighted, but they could get away with it because of the availability of cheap natural gas from Russia.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait till winter (Score:5, Informative)
You will NOT get rid of dependency on Russia by switching from natural gas power generation to nuclear power unless you build more uranium enrichment plants outside of Russia. Russia currently owns something like 45% of world's total uranium enrichment capacity, so it's not like world's nuclear power industry can get rid of the dependency on Russia right now any faster than natural gas consumers can. As to whether LNG terminals or enrichment plants are built faster, that's more of an academic question for the next few months.
Westinghouse, who built the German nuclear plants has already confirmed that they can deliver a complete set of new fuel rods by next year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wait till winter (Score:5, Informative)
Fuel rod manufacturing and uranium enrichment are two different nuclear fuel manufacturing steps. Westinghouse owns no enrichment facilities; it has to purchase enriched fuel from companies that do.
According to the Westinghouse they'll have the things ready in 2023. I'm sure they'll have done an inventory of their Uranium supplies before making that promise. I'm no nuclear fetishist but since obscene amounts of German taxpayer money has been sunk into these plants and Westinghouse can deliver fuel rods we might as as well use these money pits to offset the end of Russian gas supplies until these plants can be replaced.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wait till winter (Score:4, Informative)
Possibly, but Germany isn't planning to have any nuclear plants operating past 2023.
The entire premise of the article is that without secure gas supplies that may have to change.
Re: (Score:3)
The lesson there is not particular to nuclear power. It is how we should isolate and take out despots by whatever means possible, always, every day of every year. That we can't have nice things because some people are fundamentally evil is not a solution.
Re:Zaporizhzhia (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, it makes a lovely target. Wind and solar are less expensive, less polluting, and safer than gas or nuclear.
I believe we can safely rule out Russia shelling nuclear power plants inside of Germany. Of course on that note, if Russia did start shelling nuclear plants inside of Germany, Russia shelling nuclear plants inside of Germany would be the least of our problems.
You left out less reliable than nuclear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The land needs to be cleared of all competitors for the solar power, also known as "plants", which may have detrimental impact on the environment.
Turns out not to be the case. Surprising unless you think it out, but solar farms don't take up 100% of the land area, and you can grow plants on the same land.
Also, nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar.
You would think so. You would be wrong.
Turns out nuclear power plants are very expensive.
Nuclear power plant can generate more KWh per dollar than wind and solar.
Not even close. Nuclear is much more expensive per kWh. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
As for the security from the Russian attack, that's the purpose of NATO, not nuclear power plants. American nuclear weapons guarantee German security from the Russian attack.
With the invasion of Ukraine, the word "guarantee" has become less firm than it had been.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly, but Germany isn't planning to have any nuclear plants operating past 2023.
Opinions on that political decision were changing as environmentalists started getting realistic about nuclear, recognizing it as a necessary part of the solution to fossil fuels. That green washing could only get Germany so far.
Opinions have been changing at a greater rate since the invasion of Ukraine.
The once politically unthinkable is now being considered.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly, but Germany isn't planning to have any nuclear plants operating past 2023.
Reality voted differently.
Re:Wait till winter (Score:5, Informative)
Nearly half of this Russian enrichment capacity can be discounted from the picture due to significant slack in the world enrichment capacity (which discounts 40%) and the fact that Russia uses part of the capacity for itself (about another 8%). So only about half of it needs to be replaced - a significantly less dire picture.
But no one is building new nuclear power plants on the time scale of a a few years. It takes much longer than that everywhere. So we are only talking about keeping existing plants operating in Europe. Supplying new fuel rods to these plants is not a problem in the same sense that shipping LNG is. The rods can be shipped even if that requires cutting back on nuclear plant operations somewhere else in the world.
Cutting out Russia from the world enrichment market as form of sanctions is a different issue, which does need to be addressed. Both URENCO and China would probably like to capture that Russia's portion of the world market, and expanding both their capacities by about 50% would just about do it. China actually did add that amount of capacity from 2015 to 2020.
Nearly all the world's capacity is from gas centrifuges these days which are particularly amenable to capacity increases because of the small incremental nature of gas centrifuge cascades. Since centrifuges wear out all operations need to keep production lines open, so scaling up existing lines is what is required.
Re: (Score:2)
China actually did add that amount of capacity from 2015 to 2020.
Uhh...because of Taiwan, is relying on PRC *really* something you want to do? Really?
The rods can be shipped even if that requires cutting back on nuclear plant operations somewhere else in the world.
Temporarily you can do the same with hard coal, so for Germany *that* should not be a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger problem is converting millions of gas boilers to heat pumps. As well as the cost of the pump, they need to be retrofitted, and the building's radiators upgraded.
They will be paying whatever it costs for gas this winter.
Re: (Score:2)
an old German dogma now seems to be crumbling: the rejection of nuclear energy
Rejecting nuclear power was always stupid and short-sighted, but they could get away with it because of the availability of cheap natural gas from Russia.
It makes sense. Nuclear is the most expensive possible power generation option out there that requires obscene amounts of state subsidies so since you've already wasted taxpayer funds on these money pits you might as well use them as stop gaps to plug the Russia gas gap while you build something more cost effective.
Big win for Soviet era support for green movement (Score:3)
an old German dogma now seems to be crumbling: the rejection of nuclear energy
Rejecting nuclear power was always stupid and short-sighted, but they could get away with it because of the availability of cheap natural gas from Russia.
The move was always political.
It was a big win for that Russian Soviet era support for the German green movement.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is a single political decisions to disconnect the grids within very short time frame. Especially in case of France, which made a point to have economic and political system that while connected to the rest of EU isn't totally dependent on it.
As opposed to Germany which bet everything on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Both statements can be true though; the issue here is winter energy production.
This winter is going to be rough for the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is what I call "bookkeeping shenanigans". And yes, I'm sure that Germany, as it has "potential to go all renewable" as it has installed almost double PEAK consumption in wind and solar is already totally energy independent.
In fact, why are they even worried? They have double their peak consumption installed in wind and solar and books are telling us they're producing so well. Worrying about cold winter is therefore clearly fake news spread by Russian trolls, alt righters, and Trumpists!
Re: (Score:3)
Germany also uses some gas for electricity. That's why they've been cutting back on electricity usage, to save the gas for winter heating. Adding wind, solar, and battery to the grid coul
Re:Wait till winter (Score:5, Informative)
That has nothing to do with it, since the majority of Gerrmans have gas heaters installed. Nuclear power plants can't make gas heaters emit heat without gas, nor can they produce enough power for direct heating of houses (too inefficient), nor can enough houses be insulated and heat pumps be installed until winter (very efficient, but not enough companies in the market to renovate the whole of Germany in a few months). So, no, "being cold" has absolutely nothing to do with that.
As for "being dark", this is trivially solved in Germany in a short-term horizon by employing some of the spare capacity of German coal plants (their utilization dropped very sharply in the past ten years due to rapid growth of renewables).
So, to sum it up, the first problem is unsolvable by nuclear power in the short-term horizon of a few years and the second is not even a problem now. So why would any rational actor "change attitude toward nuclear power" for either of the two reasons when it solves neither of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Many people use resistive electrical heaters, which are as easily powered by nuclear as anything else. It is also possible to use electricity to produce methane, which will work in place of natural gas. You'd have to pass some special exemptions to get enough capacity built before winter, but it would be possible from a technical standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people use resistive electrical heaters, which are as easily powered by nuclear as anything else.
As a fun lab exercise, yes. Now do the math for a heating switch from natural gas to resistive heating for Germany and compare it to their nuclear plant capacity. Tell us the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people use resistive electrical heaters, which are as easily powered by nuclear as anything else.
As a fun lab exercise, yes. Now do the math for a heating switch from natural gas to resistive heating for Germany and compare it to their nuclear plant capacity. Tell us the results.
That was the point. If people with gas heat have no gas this winter, they are going to need a shit ton of additional electric generating capacity for emergency measures. Probably they will need to spin up both all of the nuclear and coal they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't have any extra nuclear plants since you won't be able to repair them before this winter comes. So that's not really an option.
They can't build LNG terminals to get gas imports from elsewhere fast enough for this winter either, but the time to start is still now.
It would be dumb to think the gas shortage is a temporary thing. They need to be planning for winter 5 years from now, as it is entirely possible Putin will still be in Ukraine.
The underlying rationale is, they can never go back to relying on Russia for gas. Ever. Govern yourselves accordingly, as they say.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't build LNG terminals to get gas imports from elsewhere fast enough for this winter either, but the time to start is still now.
The LNG terminals serve a purpose that nuclear plants don't: they provide German industry with natural gas for high-grade heating and chemical feedstock. Therefore the LNG terminals are necessary in a way that nuclear plants aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, since Germany's grid is interconnected with that of large portions of Europe they can actually buy electricity from other countries.
Other European countries are going to have their very own gas shortages this coming winter (and for the same reason). They may also find they need their excess generating capacity for domestic use rather than export.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this will come as a massive shock to you but you can power electric devices with electricity generated from sources other than nuclear
I'm fully aware of that. But that's exactly the issue here. The spare capacity of non-nuclear sources including imports massively exceeds the capacity of the nuclear plants in question, so it's not an argument in favor of those nuclear plants. They're negligible in the bigger picture, so if the effort to keep or reactivate them is incommensurable with their utility, it's better to invest elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It is also possible to use electricity to produce methane, which will work in place of natural gas.
Oh, and for this you don't even need to use nuclear plants; excess renewable production would be about twice as cheap because the vast majority of cost for this is the price of electricity. So that's not a good argument for nuclear power either.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually few people in Germany use resistive heaters. So few that it doesn't even show up in statistics and gets lumped together with the 6% "Other types". Gas accounts for close to 50%, Oil still accounts for nearly 30%, the other big player is district heating (mostly from gas power stations).
Anyway no need to argue with the GP, he was talking out of his arse. The whole point of the discussion of extending nuclear power and coal power was to reduce the load on the some 100 billion kWh of gas burnt generat
Bluntly, that is a stupid argument (Score:2)
the majority of Gerrmans have gas heaters installed.
I have had for years many kinds of electric heaters. In a world where a lot of German houses are going to be cut off from heating at some point this winter, the ability to quickly and easily drop electric heaters into peoples homes that really need them can correct that issue easily.
But, in order to do so, you need an abundant supply of electricity...
Re: (Score:2)
But, in order to do so, you need an abundant supply of electricity...
Well, yes, and as we've established, all the spare non-nuclear sources massively exceed the spare nuclear sources in Germany.
Re:Wait till winter (Score:5, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with it, since the majority of Gerrmans have gas heaters installed. Nuclear power plants can't make gas heaters emit heat without gas, nor can they produce enough power for direct heating of houses (too inefficient)
If you have gas heating and no gas, resistive heat, no matter how inefficient, is going to be the number one fallback.
As for "being dark", this is trivially solved in Germany in a short-term horizon by employing some of the spare capacity of German coal plants (their utilization dropped very sharply in the past ten years due to rapid growth of renewables).
And they are doing exactly that.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
So the real question is should we spin up the already available nuclear capacity, or the already available coal capacity. Using nuclear power from already built plants is much more environmentally friendly that burning more coal. The anti-nuke people deserve more coal though. That has been their primary legacy over many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallback you can't power is a poor fallback.
I agree. Putin is laughing.
And if you *could* power it from spare capacity, at least 2/3 of it would come from spare coal plant capacity than from spare nuclear plant capacity in Germany.
They are going to need all 3/3. And anyway the article is primarily about keeping already running nukes running past the end of the year when they were scheduled to be shutdown. I think it is safe to say that won't be happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Germany is part of the wider European grid, and any electricity generated will sell for market rate. Resistive heating isn't going to be affordable even with some nuclear plants.
They are going to have to pay for gas. It's not that there isn't any gas, it's just that the price is very high. Still cheaper than resistive heating though.
Gas shortages are not going to be confined to Germany. Much of Europe is going to have to pay for really expensive non-Russian gas, or replace it with whatever really expensive free market power is left after potential exporters prioritize domestic supply.
It's not going to be pretty, but trusting Putin for anything was dumb from day one.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people are able to think about events more than 6 months in the future and realize that being beholden to Putin is NOT a desirable situation, now or ever. They further recognize that actions taken now can make getting in or remaining in that undesirable situation more or less likely over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas to feed power plants competes (and bids) for the same natural gas that feeds gas heaters. So while not directly fungible, adding power to the grid would take pressure off stratospheric gas prices [statista.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with it, since the majority of Gerrmans have gas heaters installed. Nuclear power plants can't make gas heaters emit heat without gas, nor can they produce enough power for direct heating of houses (too inefficient), nor can enough houses be insulated and heat pumps be installed until winter (very efficient, but not enough companies in the market to renovate the whole of Germany in a few months). So, no, "being cold" has absolutely nothing to do with that.
"Being cold" absolutely has quite a lot to do with it because Germany has a lot of gas fired power plants [cleanenergywire.org], Every megawatt-hour of electricity supplied with nuclear or coal means more gas available for home heating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any statistics on what percentage of Germany's 2021 winter natural gas use was for residential heating?
It seems odd that it would be a huge portion comparing to what I understand about Sweden. Sweden has a fair bit of district heating in cities small and large, but the vast majority is hydronic heat pumps.
Industrial process heat is a hard one to solve, but for commercial buildings adding a partial-capacity heat pump is often a fairly easy piping and controls modification.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with it
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The whole discussions about nuclear power and coal power currently running are for the sole purpose of reducing the gas consumption in gas fired power stations.
As for "being dark", this is trivially solved in Germany in a short-term horizon by employing some of the spare capacity of German coal plants
That is also done. The existing coal plants have already had their lives extended or are in the process of it. But you can only extend the life of a running plant or restart a mothballed plant. The majority of German's coal fired power stations shutdown are not in any state to be restarted without significant work and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Going for funny, eh? Didn't get there.
I'm always more interested in going deep, and in this case it's easy to see which way to look. Over in Ukraine it appears they are already reaching the limits of how much blood they are able to pay for freedom. If they don't get some major victories against Putin, and fairly soon, then... Yeah, Germany's situation looks bleak, but over in Ukraine the Russian victory actually is an existential threat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mostly referring to the crucial martial law legislation which is about to expire. Zelensky asked his legislature for an extension, but how many times can he do that? Or have I missed some major Ukrainian victories since the first battle of Kyiv way back when?
This story is focused on collateral damage in Germany, but being forced to extend the use of nuclear power is a rather weak form of damage compared to blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make your point clearly, you seem to be implying something that's not even wrong.
The point is that there are 25k Russian troops on the West bank of the river Dnieper with broken bridges at their back, bridges that can't be used to supply them with heavy gear or bulk quantities of ammunition. On top of that the Ukrainians are able to HIMARS'e every Russian ammo dump within 80km of the front like and collapse the railway infrastructure Russia relies on to resupply it's forces. Furthermore the Ukrainians will be able to shell and HIMARS'e any traffic jams that line up at the choke points a
Re: (Score:2)
9 of the 16 HIMARS they were given have already been destroyed. In 10 days.
I'm sure you can prove that, so go ahead and pony up images of all 9 wrecked HIMARS systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More like natural gas prices [ft.com].
Natural gas is not a huge part of Germany's electricity generation mix, but if they're going to pull the plug on 4 GW of nuclear generating capacity they don't have many other sources they can simply turn up to make up the difference. Coal plants operate near capacity, and you can't just conjure one out of thin air.
With cheap natural gas they can afford to shutdown nuclear. With expensive natural gas they're looking at increased electricity prices. They're already on the verg
Re: (Score:2)
if they're going to pull the plug on 4 GW of nuclear generating capacity they don't have many other sources they can simply turn up to make up the difference. Coal plants operate near capacity, and you can't just conjure one out of thin air.
Germany shut down so many coal plants that temporarily finding 4 GW of spare capacity surely isn't an issue? It's not about "thin air". 10 GW of extra capacity was online just two years ago. Presumably from much newer plants, even. A lot less of a problem with those.
Re: (Score:2)
The answers suggest that the attitude of Germans toward nuclear power has changed significantly.
Being cold and dark will do that.
yes. The Germans are learning that electricity doesn't just come from a wall outlet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gas heating uses pipes, not wall outlets.
However, when the lights go out it may be problematic. Germany became to reliant on Russian gas and now is scrambling to try to make up for a scarcer supply. As to heat, electrical shortages mean electric heaters can't substitute for a lack of gas heat.
How green the nuclear option becomes. (Score:2)
What solutions are the old and new hippies going to suggest to keep us from being cavemen again?
Mod the ARTICLE flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Where exactly does "ethics" come into the nuclear energy debate? If anything, it's more ethical NOT to buy anything from a government that's actively doing evil things.
Re:Mod the SUBMITTER flamebait (Score:2)
It's a quote from the source... BUT it's egregiously distorted.
The next sentence is "However, some people believe nuclear power is both ecologically and morally sound "
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's completely off base. There's nothing ethical about putting a nation of 80 million people into a crisis with many already in a position where they can't afford to heat their homes in the winter all to keep some imaginary what-if scenario at bay.
Horse Pucky (Score:2)
What a load. They talked to a guy in Germany. Who cares? The law hasn't changed. If support is still at 41% on a stupid poll when the issue isn't even before the people, and they're at the worst point in a minor crisis, that suggests there will be very little support for whatever specific changes somebody proposes later.
Stupid article, written for stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
and they're at the worst point in a minor crisis,
Don't you think it will be worse during the winter?
Re:Horse Pucky (Score:4, Interesting)
What a load. They talked to a guy in Germany. Who cares? The law hasn't changed.
Then what happens in January when energy demand is high, temperatures are low, and the nuclear power plants close as scheduled? My guess there's a scramble for changing the law because the lights and heat went out in the parliament building.
Maybe Germany keeps the lights and heat running after they close their nuclear power plants but it will mean higher energy prices. That's what happens in a supply-and-demand economy when supply is restricted. I'll see people claim that keeping nuclear power plants open won't help the natural gas shortage but Germany gets about 10% of their electricity from natural gas right now, so what happens when there's less electricity produced? Might there be a demand for more natural gas to those existing power plants? I would think so.
Higher prices makes it feasible to bring in natural gas by sea. Putting natural gas on a chemical tanker ship is expensive so this is typically only done in dire circumstances. The tankers capable of shipping natural gas are also usually equipped to move ammonia. More ships moving natural gas means fewer ships moving ammonia, that means fertilizer costs go up. Higher fertilizer costs means higher food costs. This means more land for food instead of clothing fiber, and so higher clothing costs. This is a cycle for shortages in many other markets, and price inflation for most everything.
Frame the question (Score:3)
e.g. [after months of the media declaring that nobody will have heating this winter because Russian gas is going to be shut off] "Should we shut down nuclear power stations now?"
However, if you asked whether nuclear power should be phased out & replaced with renewables in a planned, controlled, & timely manner, you might get a different response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why ask if the nuclear power plants should be shut down in a planned manner? Who says no to that? The question was framed as it was because that is what is being debated in parliament. Frame the question any other way and it doesn't inform anyone on how the people feel about the issue.
The question on if nuclear should be replaced by renewable energy sources assumes that it can be done. Sure, it wold be nice if nuclear power was replaced by renewable energy sources but how much will that cost? Does it l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't even framing the question. It was incorrectly determining the cause behind a question that which didn't provide one. Yeah Germans don't want nuclear power stations shutdown. Unless the survey asked "why" the answer has nothing to do with "the attitude of Germans toward nuclear power has changed significantly"
Re: (Score:2)
Cost of dealing is minimal (Score:2, Insightful)
And now add the cost of dealing with your not so little waste for at least 100,000 years.
Ok [science.org], still cheaper than dealign with discarded solar panels and the output from solar panel creation over time.
And why are you ignoring the very real fact that CO2 output from nuclear is far less than solar or wind? Are you forgetting that nuclear wastes does not matter at all, compared to CO2 output? Are you FOR greater CO2 emissions? Because you are arguing in favor of greater CO2 emitting technologies.
And as I sai
Yes please. (Score:3)
For fucks sake, nuclear is the way to go. It would be cheaper than anything else if it wasn't for extraneous regulatory BS that does nothing for safety. Solar has a 10x higher death rate than nuclear energy. I believe in regulations, but not excessive regulations. Let's pile on regulations onto coal, solar, and natural gas -- which are deadly.
Reference: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/... [nextbigfuture.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Western's world's (minus France, of all places) rejection of nuclear power (and of advancements in nuclear power technology) is a reminder of the power of fear and demagoguery.
Germany is particularly weird because one of their political parties came out of anti-nuclear protests back in the 70s and they've been beating that drum every since. So it's become an identity issue over there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Be prepared to be accused of cherry picking your sources and moderated down for it. As much as the accusation of cherry picking goes about there seems to be little realization that this cuts both ways. It's cherry picked data against cherry picked data. Assuming the accusation of cherry picking comes with any data at all. The typical response is a bunch of name calling. Everyone is apparently a paid shill on Slashdot. Being a shill cuts both ways too. Being a shill doesn't mean they are wrong, becaus
wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The result being that an old German dogma now seems to be crumbling: the rejection of nuclear energy. Concerns are either being put on the backburner or are evaporating. Radiation from nuclear waste? Safety risks? Danger of large-scale disasters? Who cares. Those are things you worry about when you have working heat. Electricity first, then ethics.
Wow, let us know how you really feel? It is unethical for this journalist to write such non-factual things. Nuclear is the safest and least polluting energy technology we have. And yes, solar panels and windmills make lots of pollution. Large amounts of coal are required to purify the poly-silica used to make solar panels. Industrial amounts of strong acids are used (once) to mine the large amounts of rare earths needed to make windmills. The sorry truth is that there are many environmental challenges we face. We need to make large amounts of CO2 free energy and we need to drive down the cost of energy. We need to be able to recycle plastic. And we need a way to recycle strong dyes.
If you want to extract less fossil fuels, the only real way to do that is to lower the cost of energy which makes extraction unprofitable. Otherwise all that happens is the pollution is off-shored somewhere else (China) and pollution doesn't honor natural boundaries. But the leaders of the environmental movement are directly opposed to lower energy prices and nuclear power. They wallow in their own ignorance and instead wag fingers at everyone else (which is what they really want to do). I'm sure AmiMojo will be along soon to provide us an example of such a person.
The submitter is the one at fault. Re:wow (Score:2)
The journalist wrote that... followed immediately by ""However, some people believe nuclear power is both ecologically and morally sound ""
Submitter cropped it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, let us know how you really feel? It is unethical for this journalist to write such non-factual things. Nuclear is the safest and least polluting energy technology we have.
[citation needed]
The environmental movement is fine with nuke (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not going to give your average corrupt American businessman a nuclear power plant to manage, or pretend that my fellow citizens won't do that in exchange for a very, very small tax cut or rate cut. I watched what happened in Fukushima. Not a lot of deaths, but an entire city evacuated for 10 year
Gut feeling hard to ignore (Score:2)
Statistically nuclear power is safer than most alternatives if you weigh all the tradeoffs, but in a world full of terrorists and gullible coup-y troll puppets, they just make me nervous.
Re:Gut feeling hard to ignore (Score:4, Informative)
If you define safety in terms of "how many people die as a result of producing a certain amount of power", then nuclear power is still a clear winner.
To date, we've had a few hundred deaths due to nuclear power in the last half century, as opposed to the few hundred deaths per year for any of the alternatives.
And a few hundred deaths per DAY in traffic is considered "normal"....
Re: (Score:2)
If you define safety in terms of "how many people die as a result of producing a certain amount of power", then nuclear power is still a clear winner.
To date, we've had a few hundred deaths due to nuclear power in the last half century, as opposed to the few hundred deaths per year for any of the alternatives.
[citation needed]
Nuclear energy needs water (Score:2)
Nuclear energy needs massive amounts of water. This is why France, who is basically getting all its energy from nuclear power plants, is struggling currently, as in every dry and hot summer.
And sometimes in winter, too.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that is not why they are struggling now.
They are struggling because COVID has delayed inspection of the older plants. So now they are inspecting a lot of them at the same time. And they have to shut them down to inspect them. And the plants of the 1990's need an inspection to check IF they have a corrosion problem.
Re: (Score:2)
We have nuclear power plants in very "dry" areas already, they just use the sea for cooling water. A shortage of fresh water is not the same as a shortage of sea water. It is "water water all around and not a drop to drink". Use sea water, the seas aren't running dry. Once that is done then maybe do some desalination so people have something to drink.
Oh, and people think wind and solar don't need water? Cooling a nuclear power plant with sea water is a solved problem. If we spray seawater on solar pan
Some don't want gas either. (Score:2)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/... [www.cbc.ca]
I often wonder if any of these protesters have jobs, or if they just live in tents from protest to protest.
Nuclear power is fantastic... (Score:2)
Egregiously misleading quote; don't believe it (Score:2)
The crop of the quote is egregiously misleading. It wildly distorts the summary of the linked article to give it an anti-nuclear bias the article absolutely does not have.
The way this is clipped implies that der spiegel is saying nuclear power is immoral.
The very next sentence in the linked article is "However, some people believe nuclear power is both ecologically and morally sound " and they then proceed to discuss that. This quote isn't stopping at the end of the article's summary or even a new section
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't really understand anyone who is anti-nuclear in a world where we still burn coal, throwing literally more radiation into the air not to mention everything else. Leading visionary climate scientists like James Hansen support nuclear and it's even more true as we become more and more literally on fire.
And the article discusses all that in reasonable ways...
Re: (Score:2)
also, omg my sig is so old. Guess I haven't posted in a while.
The stakes are rather low now. (Score:2)
We are talking about three reactors which are giving a small percentage only of the German electricity. Most plants have already been phased out. Decision by Shröder who went then working for Gazprom.
But i welcome a less dogmatic attitude by the Germans. The Belgians have taken a similar decision with also a limited scope. If their hate of nuclear recedes, they will have more options on the long term. More dispatchable ones.
But that would take a lot of time: Germany has no more a big nuclear industry a
Wait until Russia finalizes Zaporizhzhia plan (Score:2)
Nuclear power plants now may be used to blackmail any continent, as Russia now experiments. The international reaction is rather mild making this kind of action more likely for the future. If the Zaporizhzhia events turn bad, expect countries reconsidering nuclear power with a less naive approach as taken by nuclear power activists.
Maybe as a stop gap (Score:2)
magical thinking (Score:2)
Magical thinking gets a shock when the rubber meets the road.