
Fear of a Meltdown - Tomte
https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2018-06/tihange-nuclear-power-plant-residents-opposition-english/komplettansicht
======
clvcooke
I'm sympathetic to the worries of a local population about being exposed to a
nuclear disaster. The thought of radiation effecting you, your friends and
family is horrifying.

Where I diverge from the article is the opinions of the anti-nuclear
activists, where they say "It is time to bring nuclear energy to an end". I
realize that nuclear power is scary and that this particular reactor may have
a higher than average risk profile. However, where they lose me is the
alternative. There, currently, is no viable alternative to nuclear that
provides the same safety and econimic benefits, not to mention environmental
pros of nuclear.

Simply not liking something is not enough reason to get rid of it. Who knows
maybe a new, safer plant would have been built if they were allowed, but the
people voted against it. I find this type of reasoning problematic, it has
somehow become common (or I'm just realizing its happening) to rally against
something without considering the alternatives that would have to replace it.

~~~
ThomPete
Nuclear is the safest, greenest, most scalable, most reliable and plentiful
energy form we have.

More people die every year from Coal than have died from Nuclear in it's
entire history.

More people die every year of setting up solar and wind than of nuclear.

I could go on.

The fear of nuclear is absurd and 100% due to the success of a mostly anti
humanist environmental movement and the completely un-scientific political
debate that surrounds this (which also have found it's way into the climate
debate)

It's really quite sad.

~~~
fossuser
Nuclear failures are different - they make an entire area uninhabitable for
hundreds of years and they're very difficult to clean up without getting a lot
of people killed.

~~~
WalterBright
Just today on HackerNews:

"An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands of Coal Miners"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712022](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18712022)

~~~
fossuser
Coal isn't great either (worse in a lot of ways), but the type of risk is
different.

I just find it odd that Nuclear seems to create these almost religious
followers like the parent comment I replied to that ignore the tradeoffs and
special risks of Nuclear failures. Wind and solar seem a lot more preferable
and are getting better with battery improvements leading to increased capacity
with a lower cost.

~~~
ThomPete
You should find any evidence of your own position before you start calling
other people religious. The risk of nuclear is not even comparable to the risk
of things you do everyday and take for granted are not worth worrying about.
Find the evidence that show nuclear is even a fraction as dangerous as you
claim. Dont take my worth for it, educate yourself. Then come back with the
evidence and i will rally up behind you.

Wind and solar are not even close to being able to deliver like nuclear and
they deliver a fraction of the worlds need (1%). More people die from setting
up solar and wind, way more animals die because of wind, both wind and solar
pollute more. Its pretty obvious who is the religious person here.

------
vanderZwan
BTW, does anyone know the reason why the people in Germany in particular seem
to have much stronger anti-nuclear stance than the surrounding countries?

This is entirely anecdotal of course, but I know many people from different
European countries and (except for the physicists) all Germans I know seem to
associate nuclear power with nuclear weaponry and polluting mother nature to a
degree that other European countries just don't have. No matter what the
educational background.

Is there some historical precedent? Some political movement unique to Germany?

~~~
ghaff
Likely a holdover from the Cold War and conflation of nuclear arms and nuclear
energy generally. Germany, then West Germany specifically, was basically
Ground Zero in the event of a superpower conflict so there was a significant
anti-nuclear faction in Germany with respect to the basing of medium-range
nuclear missiles, for example.

~~~
zwieback
Yes, in the 80's the Green Party emerged at a perfect time where public
sentiment was very anti-nuclear (weapons as well as energy) and to this day
there's been a steady political force advocating for exit from nuclear power.
Also, Germany has traditionally had a ton of coal, which was heavily
subsidized, and there was less reason to look for alternative energy sources.
France at the time was opposite, investing more in nuclear power.

------
wcoenen
Some possibly relevant context: the electricity supply in Belgium has very
little reserve during peak demand periods in winter. The probability of a
large blackout has been growing year after year. The government has prepared a
"disconnection plan" with controlled rolling blackouts of different regions to
avoid a total blackout:
[https://economie.fgov.be/nl/themas/energie/bevoorradingszeke...](https://economie.fgov.be/nl/themas/energie/bevoorradingszekerheid/elektriciteitsschaarste/afschakelplan-
voor)

As a result, reducing the electricity supply further is currently politically
impossible.

~~~
21
Why not take from Germany?

> _People in Germany essentially got paid to use electricity on Christmas.
> Electricity prices in the country went negative for many customers - as in,
> below zero - on Sunday and Monday, because the country 's supply of clean,
> renewable power actually outstripped demand, according to The New York
> Times. _

~~~
wcoenen
The potential shortage would happen during a cold spell, when people in
housing with poor heating start using small electrical heaters in large
numbers. This tends to happen in neighboring countries at the same time, so
the amount of electricity available for import is low at those times.

The negative prices that you quote are very special cases due to wind
conditions. The wind doesn't always blow when it is unusually cold.

Also, the power lines used for import have limited capacity, and there has
been underinvestment there as well.

------
roenxi
>> The expanding number of cracks, the statement said, was the result of the
increased sensitivity of the testing equipment, which had improved over the
years.

This is a great quote for the problems Nuclear faces. The scrutiny is orders
of magnitude more than in, say, coal or solar, and so many more mistakes and
problems are found.

The result is that nuclear remains much safer in pretty much every way.
Nuclear should be less safe, it would be more economic and bring the risks in
line with what people accept in other fields. If nuclear power was 10 times as
safe as driving a car to work, or going to the supermarket, then nuclear power
would be shut down. No questions asked.

The situation is frustrating and stupid.

~~~
yborg
>The situation is frustrating and stupid.

Not really. I can't really conceive of a situation in which a solar voltaic
power installation can kill even a single person. Maybe a panel falls on a
worker there. It's even harder to conceive of a situation in which hundreds of
square kilometers of land would be contaminated by one in such a way that it
would cost billions to clean it up. With nuclear, there is no need to
conjecture such a scenario, it has now happened twice in 25 years.

The problem with nuclear is that despite the low probability of a major
failure, when one happens, it is very, very expensive. They cannot be allowed
to happen, so heavy oversight is necessary. For Fukushima, the 2016 estimate
was $193B in costs to clean up, and between 2012 and 2017 the ratepayers of
Tepco had shouldered $21B in costs in the form of higher rates. So even if you
don't care about the safety of individuals directly at risk from a failure,
the economic costs demand such scrutiny.

~~~
Gibbon1
Notable to me is that a solar installation doesn't appear to be
technologically complicated. And failures are very localized and self-
limiting.

vs nuclear where we're getting a good idea what the significant failure rate
is. One serious event every 10 years. Extrapolating that to a world that uses
100% nuclear energy means one Fukushima/Chernobyl failure per year.
Extrapolate that over the 200 year emergency we're at the beginning of and
yeah, just no.

~~~
ThomPete
Silar and wind kill and pollute, they currently cover 1% dspite all the effort
that went into them try and turn that up and se what it does to animals
especially birds, people, natural resources etc, you will quickly find nuclear
to be much safer.

~~~
Gibbon1
TMI-2 suffered a partial meltdown and came within hours of losing containment.
Three Mile Island is on the Susquehanna River which flows into Chesapeake Bay.

Your call.

~~~
ThomPete
No its actually yours. Newer versions cant meltdown as their safty mechanism
is based on physics. Thorium would even further the safety. So investing in
that direction would be far better. Solar and wind will not be able to suplly
us with enough energy, not even close. The alternatives to them are fossil
fuels, which demonstrately kill millions _a_year_ so its actually your call
not mine.

