German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy
-
Unlike the complete safety of fossil fuels.
Because everyone knows there's literally only fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nothing else.
-
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?
Chances that you randomly pick 1000 people that all consume the exact same media is pretty low I guess
-
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.).
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
FFS, people are stupid.
There was a huge hysteria about nuclear when Fukushima happened. A clear majority was for immediate action. Merkel's coalition government would have ended if she hadn't done a 180 on nuclear and decided to shut down nuclear as soon as possible, which was 2023. I was against shutting it down back then but I thought you can't go against the whole population, so I get why they did it. People didn't change their mind until 2022. Nobody talked about reversing that decision in all these years when there was actually time to reverse the decision.
Now, that the last reactor is shut down, the same people that were up in arms in 2011 are now up in arms that we don't have nuclear. Building new plants will cost billions and take decades and nuclear doesn't work well with renewables because of its inflexibility. It makes no sense at all. It was a long-term decision we can't just back away from. What's done is done.
nuclear doesn’t work well with renewables because of its inflexibility
Uuuuh, why wouldn't it? Nuclear can provide a steady base load for the grid while the renewables are providing the rest, filling up storages for spike times if there is an excess. Don't really see how this is a big issue.
-
Nuclear works well with renewables. It provides reliable base load while the renewables and batteries can be used on top of that. Plus the fuel can be sourced from friendly nations like Canada.
Also worth noting that 15 years is a long time. SMRs are starting to be built and France is planning to build a bunch of nuclear capacity in the near future which might mean the possiblity to import cheap energy or leverage the human resources from those builds.
Nuclear works well with fucking nothing because it doesn't work... because it's just too fucking expensive, has to be shut down when it's too hot and is so dangerous you can't even find insurance. Base load can be provided by hydro, gas (which can be sourced sustainably) or batteries, all of which is cheaper, less dangerous and more easily available than nuclear.
-
FFS, people are stupid.
There was a huge hysteria about nuclear when Fukushima happened. A clear majority was for immediate action. Merkel's coalition government would have ended if she hadn't done a 180 on nuclear and decided to shut down nuclear as soon as possible, which was 2023. I was against shutting it down back then but I thought you can't go against the whole population, so I get why they did it. People didn't change their mind until 2022. Nobody talked about reversing that decision in all these years when there was actually time to reverse the decision.
Now, that the last reactor is shut down, the same people that were up in arms in 2011 are now up in arms that we don't have nuclear. Building new plants will cost billions and take decades and nuclear doesn't work well with renewables because of its inflexibility. It makes no sense at all. It was a long-term decision we can't just back away from. What's done is done.
FFS, people are stupid.
Proceeds to be pro nuclear.
-
Lol you contradicted yourself. First you implied that the sun is proof that there is a safe level of radiation and then you agree that the sun kills people.
-
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.
-
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.
-
FFS, people are stupid.
There was a huge hysteria about nuclear when Fukushima happened. A clear majority was for immediate action. Merkel's coalition government would have ended if she hadn't done a 180 on nuclear and decided to shut down nuclear as soon as possible, which was 2023. I was against shutting it down back then but I thought you can't go against the whole population, so I get why they did it. People didn't change their mind until 2022. Nobody talked about reversing that decision in all these years when there was actually time to reverse the decision.
Now, that the last reactor is shut down, the same people that were up in arms in 2011 are now up in arms that we don't have nuclear. Building new plants will cost billions and take decades and nuclear doesn't work well with renewables because of its inflexibility. It makes no sense at all. It was a long-term decision we can't just back away from. What's done is done.
I like that you mention the point, Merkel's coalition made a full 180 turnaround. Which was an error.
They could have just made a plan for phasing out the reactors until maybe 2040 or 2050. No, they had to stop them right away and now the existing plants are so gutted that they are not feasible to be rebuilt again.Anyway, building new power plants takes centuries in Germany. So we should just focus on renewables *and storage solutions now.
-
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.
-
Our largest power plant, with 6 reactors, was built in 6 years. To this day it provides us with around 6% of our global power requirements. It's been running for 45 years, producing 32TWh per year with 0 carbon emissions.
It's like we could build them faster if we wanted to ? We've done it already, we can do it again.
45 years would be 1980. That sounds like you're refering to Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, but construction started in 1980, and although the first five reactors went live 5 years later the 6th reactor didn't go live until 1996. 16 years later.
Even so, you're only counting construction. That plant would have been being designed for at least 5 years previous.
And safety standards have gone up since then, in part because of it's slightly older cousin at Chernobyl (different design, but also built in 5 years).
-
45 years would be 1980. That sounds like you're refering to Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, but construction started in 1980, and although the first five reactors went live 5 years later the 6th reactor didn't go live until 1996. 16 years later.
Even so, you're only counting construction. That plant would have been being designed for at least 5 years previous.
And safety standards have gone up since then, in part because of it's slightly older cousin at Chernobyl (different design, but also built in 5 years).
I'm talking about Gravelines in France. The first reactor was plugged into the national grid 6 years after construction began. The 6th reactor in 1985.
The EPR2 is already designed, and in service in Flamanville. Flamanville 3 took a long time because we had to rebuild our whole nuclear industry, by lack of political vision back in the 90's-00's.
We're building it again, two by two this time, and hopefully in less than half the time and budget.
-
nuclear doesn’t work well with renewables because of its inflexibility
Uuuuh, why wouldn't it? Nuclear can provide a steady base load for the grid while the renewables are providing the rest, filling up storages for spike times if there is an excess. Don't really see how this is a big issue.
The issue is nuclear reactors become more expensive the less load they have.
As we build more renewables, nuclear energy will decrease in cost efficiency as renewables and storages start handling base loads.
The problem isn't so much that it can't work, it's that it will not be cost efficient long term.
-
Germany is the obvious evidence for that claim. Their once great industry is doing really bad due to high energy prices. Which is why even they are second guessing the Energiewende.
Despite insane levels of investment in renewables, they are still stuck on gas en lignite and have very high energy prices.
Merkel's bet that Russian gas could always be depended on didn't work out.
Merkel is a conservative. Their party stopped the original long term nuclear phase out, the original long term renewables build phase. Germany had a lot of photovoltaic industry back then. But the conservatives stopped the funding instead of phasing it out slowly.
It's all intentional mismanagement here for the profit of some energy CEOs and politicians
