
Volkswagen boss criticizes Germany’s decision to privilege coal over nuclear - jseliger
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/climate-emergency-germany-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power
======
Luc
"According to you, does nuclear energy contribute to the production of
greenhouse gasses (CO2) and to climate change?"

In France a whopping 86% of 18-34 year olds answer YES.

Source: p17 of [https://www.orano.group/docs/default-source/orano-
doc/presse...](https://www.orano.group/docs/default-source/orano-
doc/presse/dossiers-presse/les-fran%C3%A7ais-et-le-
nucl%C3%A9aire/20190625_bva-pour-orano_distribution-conf%C3%A9rence-de-presse-
et-site-intern.pdf?sfvrsn=227a1c20_4)

~~~
joss82
Which is true indeed!

Nuclear power, in a world where transport emits co2, emits co2 (especially
during the enrichment phase).

Just waaaaay less than other forms of electricity production (including solar
and wind)

~~~
Luc
It is exactly this which Greenpeace has latched onto for their propagande. The
fact that it is true in only the most trivial way is not understood by those
on the receiving end.

The end result is a voting population primed to vote against their own
interests.

------
jarym
I think nuclear power is great. Unfortunately we don’t have the means to fix a
catastrophe should one occur (and it will, as safe as nuclear is, it it not
possible to eliminate the possibility of a serious accident).

‘Safety’ has to be considered in the context of mitigation options as well as
options to correct problems. It’s the latter that lets down nuclear -
Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown we just can’t contain and correct the
effects when things go wrong.

Until we as a race figure out how to do that, nuclear will remain dangerous in
my view.

~~~
gruez
>Unfortunately we don’t have the means to fix a catastrophe should one occur
(and it will, as safe as nuclear is, it it not possible to eliminate the
possibility of a serious accident).

meanwhile, coal powerplants are spewing out co2, heavy metals, and radioactive
particles during normal operation.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Nuclear plants produce waste, this means now deciding that humans will have to
not mess that up for the next ~100.000 years. Sure, maybe we'll find a way to
process it all (or shoot it into the sun with a super safe space elevator?),
but right now, this is what we got, and it's really not much:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
level_radioactive_waste_m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
level_radioactive_waste_management)

> There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and
> engineering foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal
> strategies. There are those who have argued, on the basis of complex
> geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing control over radioactive
> materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable
> risk. They maintain that so-called "natural analogues" inhibit subterranean
> movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable
> geologic formations unnecessary. However, existing models of these processes
> are empirically underdetermined: due to the subterranean nature of such
> processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation
> models has not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over
> periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level
> radioactive waste. On the other hand, some insist deep geologic repositories
> in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of
> various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate.

We're the species that used x-ray machines in shoe shops, to sell more shoes
than the other guy. We put the guy who discovered the usefulness of washing
hands into an asylum, out of sheer pride and arrogance. So great, we have a
bunch of "complex models", and that's what we want to gamble it on? The
weather forecast also keeps getting more accurate, but few people would bet
their own life on the forecast for even tomorrow. But we'll do it on behalf of
people who don't get a say?

~~~
tekproxy
We found a way. It's called thorium. Waste is only radioactive for a century
and iirc it's a lower energy. They can also use current waste as fuel.

Reactor tech is 40 years old. If your phone is 4 years old, one might consider
it trash. Imagine how good they'd be if the industry innovated even as slow
and conservatively as medicine. Oh, there's also liquid sodium and fast
breeders.

FUD keeps the tech from advancing.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> Imagine how good they'd be

I'm talking about today and the facts, saying "we found a solution" is simply
ignoring everything.

------
pojzon
Its depressing that people voting for "green" parties are actually supporting
more pollution.

Nuclear power is the only way to be honest.

~~~
machz
Solar is the only solution.

~~~
Vaskivo
Why not both?

I believe Nuclear is a better compromise until we reach a level where we can
go 100% solar/renewable.

Meanwhile we _need_ energy. I think nuclear is better that fossil

------
tuco86
Nuclear Power is great until it's not. 'Germany is Wrong..' is a bit
simplistic. No one would say japan is wrong for shutting nuclear down. Yet
Chernobyl was only 30 years ago and fallout was blown over Germany. Some food
could not be harvested for years (Mostly mushrooms like my beloved chanterelle
•`_´•).

There grew a whole movement out of it and from that a political party called
"Bündnis 90/Die Grünen" (the greens) which stand for protecting the
environment and getting rid of nuclear power. They nearly overtook the
conservative christian party at the last eu elections.

Also it's been at least a 20 year struggle to find a place to put all the
nuclear waste, also highly politicised and vastly expensive.

You see, it's a little complicated.

Personally I would be fine with nuclear power as long as externalities are
paid by the power companies and we learn how to better handle disasters.

~~~
Luc
> No one would say japan is wrong for shutting nuclear down.

Many people say that, including those best placed to know.

> Also it's been at least a 20 year struggle to find a place to put all the
> nuclear waste, also highly politicised and vastly expensive.

All you need is a warehouse. Sure, a reinforced one, a nice one. But there is
no need to put the waste kilometers under the ground. It's only so vastly
expensive because some people will feel better when it's 'out of the
environment'.

~~~
tuco86
I overreached a little with 'no one', I admit. I's just, telling someone he is
just wrong while there are reasons, idk.

Have not really thought about a 100000 year warehouse that maybe susceptible
to disaster or attack, sounds great.

I'm on board if the costs are paid by power company.

------
_Codemonkeyism
I don't think anyone who didn't live through Tschernobyl, WAA, Castor and the
NATO Double-Track Decision with the SS-20 scare can understand why Germany
doesn't want nuclear power.

~~~
sabertoothed
...and the Asse mismanagement [1][2] with costs of 4-6 billion EUR.

[1] English:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine)

[2] German:
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schachtanlage_Asse](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schachtanlage_Asse)

------
samcday
I only have a shallow understanding of the economic forces at play in the
energy market. But it seems to be that we're just not going to be able to
disrupt the fossil fuel industries before it's too late.

Is there someone who's knowledgeable on this subject that can cheer me up with
some good data suggesting maybe we can turn this ship around in time? Or
should I just start hoping that we miraculously nail fusion in the next 5
years and suddenly find we have absolutely no need for oil / coal / gas?

~~~
singularity2001
Global solar installation doubling every <3 years ⇨ we will be at 95% solar in
less than 20 years:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics)

No miracle needed, no politics needed.

~~~
javagram
> At that rate we will be at 95% solar in less than 20 years

What’s the growth rate for energy storage technology that can keep the lights
on when it’s cloudy or night time?

~~~
singularity2001
seems to be similar(?):

[https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/1509.jpg](https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/1509.jpg)

[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-47A2m_usNOs/Tg7vhWBqroI/AAAAAAAAFB...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-47A2m_usNOs/Tg7vhWBqroI/AAAAAAAAFB4/tZ8XurvKtXk/s1600/Lithium_Electric_Vehicle_Graph.gif)

------
southern_cross
Merkel’s decision to prematurely shut down Germany's generally safe and
successful nuclear power program was quite frankly just stupid.

------
tastroder
Is there anything new here that adds to the discussion on HN or can we expect
the same pseudo-scientific back and forth between "nuclear isn't too bad, we
have new reactors" and "it's still not safe enough"? The democratic society in
Germany settled on the latter decades ago, I'm not sure why this needs to be
regurgitated every month just because some countries settled on the former.

------
PunksATawnyFill
The Japanese really screwed nuclear power from a PR standpoint, just when we
should be going all-in on it.

~~~
ajna91
While the handful of Fukushima related injuries are tragic, they pale in
comparison to the thousands of injuries/deaths directly caused by pollution by
traditional plants, not to mention climate change.

------
gmueckl
A lot of the strong anti-fission sentiments in Germany is buit on emotion and
not facts. The debate has been thoroughly poisoned by fear-mongering of the
opponents of nuclear power. Interestingly, this was the strategy of
environmentalist and left-wing parties jumped onto the same bandwagon. This
has been going on for more than 3 decades and the public is mostly trained to
ignore any rational arguments (no matter whether for or against). So unless a
new generation grows up that is not indoctrinated (for lack of a better term),
the decision to exit nuclear power has no chance of being overturned.

------
Zenst
Was post Japan Fukushima incident that Germany did this as a knee-jerk
reaction. Of course, not factoring in the enviromental aspect. Then the big
factor that most of Germanies coal electric generating plants sit on the
border of other countries, makeing their enviroment/air quality at the mercy
of the wind. An often overlooked aspect in air quality in some places - change
of wind and they get somebody else's dirty air and tips the balance triggering
the EU to fine the place with the dirty air and overlook the source that may
of been within limits (just) but combined with another source that is within
limits, tips the balance and you get air quality that's classed as unfit and
bad.

So for many neibours, thank you Germany for your pollution so you can carry on
burning your toxic coal at any excuse.

~~~
dang
Hey, please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewars, or any
flamewars.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
Zenst
Sorry, certainly not my intentions or intended sentiments.

~~~
dang
I'm sure that's true. It's just that a lot of these start unintentionally, so
we all have to practice fire safety.

