Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. World News
  3. German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy

German poll: Majority for return to nuclear energy

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved World News
world
254 Posts 96 Posters 1.4k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S [email protected]

    waste is a much smaller problem than co2 emmissions. Waste can be put in water which completely shields it.

    J This user is from outside of this forum
    J This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #91

    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.

    ? 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • J [email protected]

      We have an almost indefinite source of energy below our feet and almost nobody talks about. Screw nuclear, go geothermal

      ? Offline
      ? Offline
      Guest
      wrote on last edited by
      #92

      It's not an either-or.

      We need as many sources of energy as possible to increase the available supply and reduce the cost.

      J ? T gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG 4 Replies Last reply
      0
      • I [email protected]

        If you are burying the waste, you'd be using a mine that is below the impermeable bedrock layer. There would be no leeching at all.

        And using the most expensive project on the planet as your reference is disingenuous as best. Most other projects cost less than a third of that.

        Additionally, almost no one is ever suggesting that nuclear is a 100% replacement. Most people suggest nuclear baseload with renewables+battery for peaks.

        B This user is from outside of this forum
        B This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #93

        Would, should, could:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

        Why didn't they bury it in impermeable bedrock then in this case. It will cost the taxpayer 3.7 billion to evacuate the rusty and leaky containers there. Which will probably start in 2033 and last decades. If they don't get it right the waste will probably leak into groundwater. That was already stated in a report from 1979 but declared as unscientific by managers of the facilitiy. The building time for Olkiluotos Onkalo was 20 years. You can search for other "End Storages" of nuclear waste around the world. Not many of them are even operating now. You can also look up facilities in Arizona making the same mistake as Germany in storing the waste in salt mines. You can also lookup the devastating effects of Uranium mining for the environment (e.g. in Navajo land).

        Here's your baseload argument debunked:

        "The beauty of these approaches is that they address one of nuclear power’s biggest weaknesses: the fact that it can only generate electricity in large, all-or-nothing chunks. Many of the above solutions are distributed across the grid, meaning that the simultaneous failure of a few units need not bring down the entire electric grid.".

        Yesterday 58% of the energy in Germany came from renewables. It briefly had a day in January when renewables surpassed 100% of its energy demand. Energy is sold between the member states of the EU. Germany regularily imports about 2-5% of its energy per year. Not because the can't generate the baseload via coal or gas but because it's cheaper to buy. Only 0.5% of that imported energy comes from nuclear. The rest is also from renewables.

        A bit offtopic but related: Mr. Habeck the previous much scolded economy minister had a big part in the rise of renewables and his further plans would have been to build out hydrogen production via renewables to act as a future CO2 neutral baseload capacity. Now Germany is in the hands of old white man again who want to burn the world. Just yesterday a headline was that the conservatives want to restrict the influence of the buero against monopolies in pursuing suspected cases of price agreements between fossil fuel cooperations.

        B 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • sexy_peach@feddit.orgS [email protected]

          Fukushima isn't the big argument against nuclear.

          IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE

          A This user is from outside of this forum
          A This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #94

          The "expensive" argument is bollocks.

          It's not too expensive for China, South Korea, Japan, the USA, France, the UAE, Iran, India, Russia.

          The countries without nuclear will deindustrialize and the countries with nuclear will outcompete them.

          sexy_peach@feddit.orgS 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J [email protected]

            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.

            ? Offline
            ? Offline
            Guest
            wrote on last edited by
            #95

            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!"

            J 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • K [email protected]

              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.

              R This user is from outside of this forum
              R This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #96

              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.

              W F A 3 Replies Last reply
              0
              • X [email protected]

                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.

                ? Offline
                ? Offline
                Guest
                wrote on last edited by
                #97

                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.

                X 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • archmageazor@lemmy.worldA [email protected]

                  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.

                  ? Offline
                  ? Offline
                  Guest
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #98

                  There’s no good reason to be against nuclear power.

                  Ahh, you gotta keep in mind: useful idiots.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deH [email protected]

                    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.

                    ? Offline
                    ? Offline
                    Guest
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #99

                    How does the cost compare to the starting and operating a coal mine?

                    What about oil wells and refineries?

                    halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deH W 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • Y [email protected]

                      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, ...

                      ? Offline
                      ? Offline
                      Guest
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #100

                      It's not perfect, but to forego nuclear energy while still burning fossil fuels is retarded.

                      T W 2 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • R [email protected]

                        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

                        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/

                        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/

                        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling/

                        ? Offline
                        ? Offline
                        Guest
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #101

                        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...

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • sexy_peach@feddit.orgS [email protected]

                          Fukushima isn't the big argument against nuclear.

                          IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE

                          ? Offline
                          ? Offline
                          Guest
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #102

                          No it's not.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • sexy_peach@feddit.orgS [email protected]

                            Wait what I am 100% pro renewables...

                            If nuclear somehow were the only option, I would support it. But it's the worst option.

                            ? Offline
                            ? Offline
                            Guest
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #103

                            How do we supply power when renewables aren't enough?

                            R 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • F [email protected]

                              Ah yes, that's why we should invest money into an expensive form of energy instead of a cheap one, that will help us displace fossil fuels!

                              ? Offline
                              ? Offline
                              Guest
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #104

                              Hate to break it to you, bud, but energy is already priced according to how expensive it is to provide.

                              It's not about "this energy source vs. that energy source." It's about increasing the supply of available energy.

                              Read a book on energy and you'll quickly realize that as we produce more energy, we consume more. Right now, our energy needs are not being met even with fossil fuels + nuclear + renewables.

                              F 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • L [email protected]


                                if we were to either replace all power on earth with nuclear, or replace all power on earth with wind, more people would die from- idk, falling out of wind turbines- then from deaths due to nuclear.

                                Fukushima had a fucking earthquake and a tsunami theiwn at it, AND the company which made it cut corners. It was still, much, much less bad than it could have been and the reactor still partially withstood a lot of damage.

                                In the United States at least (and i assume the rest of the world) nuclear energy is so overegulated that many reactors can have meltdowns without spelling disaster for the nearby area. Nuclear caskets (used to transport and store wastes) can withstand fucking missle strikes.

                                Im not going to pretend that there arent genuine issues with nuclear, such as cost and construction time(*partially caused by the overegulation), but genuine nuclear disaster has only ever resulted from the worst of human decisions combined with the worst of circumstances.
                                Do i trust humans not to make shitty mistakes? No, not with all this overegulation, but still, even counting Fukushima and Chernobyl, more people die from wind (and especially fossil fuels) then nuclear per terawatt of electricity production.

                                ? Offline
                                ? Offline
                                Guest
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #105

                                Thank you for bringing some light to these people living in the dark.

                                I swear, some people see an influencer say "nuclear is actually really bad!" and then just take it and run.

                                Really puts into perspective how smart the average person in these days. They're just trying to look good in front of their peers.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • U [email protected]

                                  Which outlines why you don't do majority-vote politics. There is zero interest by private entities to restart nuclear in Germany. Why? Because it makes zero sense.

                                  No one wants to front the money, no one wants to buy overpriced nuclear power, no one wants the waste, no one wants a responsibility for decades and I bet you, if you asked the people on the poll whether they want to live near a plant or waste facility, almost everyone is going to say no.

                                  The sole reason for (modern) nuclear power is high reliability at very low emissions and much energy per space. You know what can also do this? A battery.

                                  If you want to install state-of-the-art molten salt SMRs as high-reliability baseline supply for network infrastructure and hospitals, go for it. But don't try to sell me a super expensive water boiler as miracle technology.

                                  ? Offline
                                  ? Offline
                                  Guest
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #106

                                  Because it makes zero sense.

                                  Translation: They can't make an egregious amount of profit off of everyone else's hard work.

                                  U 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • A [email protected]

                                    The "expensive" argument is bollocks.

                                    It's not too expensive for China, South Korea, Japan, the USA, France, the UAE, Iran, India, Russia.

                                    The countries without nuclear will deindustrialize and the countries with nuclear will outcompete them.

                                    sexy_peach@feddit.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                                    sexy_peach@feddit.orgS This user is from outside of this forum
                                    [email protected]
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #107

                                    The countries without nuclear will deindustrialize and the countries with nuclear will outcompete them.

                                    Where is the evidence for that claim?

                                    A 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • ? Guest

                                      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!"

                                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                                      J This user is from outside of this forum
                                      [email protected]
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #108

                                      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.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • ? Guest

                                        It's not an either-or.

                                        We need as many sources of energy as possible to increase the available supply and reduce the cost.

                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        J This user is from outside of this forum
                                        [email protected]
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #109

                                        Maybe Thorium reactors but not that other shit that poisons everything for millenia.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • U [email protected]

                                          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.

                                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                                          [email protected]
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #110

                                          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

                                          U 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups