What makes a country support/oppose nuclear?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandanavia there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

[Tender Branson]

Because Austria and Southern Germany were among the most contaminated areas of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, besides northern Ukraine/Belarus itself and Scandinavia, because of the western winds that brought us all the radiation from the power plant which was 1000 miles away:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/index.php/Anti-nuclear_Movement_in_Austria#Austria_And_Nuclear_Power_After_Chernobyl

The high radiation of course still exists for example in mushrooms. You are advised not to pick, cook and eat too many at once.

[Tender Branson]

A more broader explanation can be found here:

Austria's NO to Nuclear Power

Currently, 90% of Austrians are opposed to nuclear power plants and 5% support them. That's the highest level of opposition in Europe.

I'm one of the opponents too (nuclear power plants should be banned). We have enough renewables here anyway (mostly water and wind energy).

[Simfan34]

Level of silliness in the general population.

[Cranberry]

Very important to understand the opposition at least for Austria, but to an extent certainly also for Germany, is that the media actually is reporting nearly 100% critical of nuclear power. Especially the boulevard press is opposed to nuclear power, as demonstrated by the change of energy policy in Germany after Fukushima which was largely directed by change in public opinion (which is to a large extent shaped by the Bild newspaper in Germany).

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandanavia there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

[H. Ross Peron]

I think it may at least partially depend on leaders taking a strong stand for nuclear power or not-hence why Japan seems unlikely to abandon it due to the strong support shown for it by the LDP and Prime Minister Abe.

[politicus]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

[Tender Branson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

No, a city can't be radioactive.

But a nuclear plant is and people do not want their kids to end up like this if something goes wrong:



Sry, but nukes suck and kill, no matter how the pro-lobby argues. They all need to be shut down.

[Simfan34]

...

Nukes kill, yes, that's the point. Nuclear plants, not so much. Even the all-feared Chernobyl resulted in about 60 deàths, as I've said before. Hysteria killed more than radiation. Your hysterical antics will only cause more.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

No, a city can't be radioactive.

But a nuclear plant is and people do not want their kids to end up like this if something goes wrong:



Sry, but nukes suck and kill, no matter how the pro-lobby argues. They all need to be shut down.

Parts of the inside is, not the outside. A nuclear plant emit far less radiation than a coal plant. Sure nuclear plants have issues, but nowhere near as many issues as coal plants, which needs to be shut down first. It is unfortunate that sometimes the experienced risk is very different from the real risk.

Obviously nukes sucks, and if Sweden started lobbying nukes towards Copenhagen it would indeed be somewhat offensive.. However, noone has suggessted such a thing.

[politicus]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

That is a stupid comparison.

Nuclear plants posses a certain danger and they should not be placed near major cities, that are difficult to evacuate and where the consequences of an accident would be tremendous - that is not hysteria, but prudent risk management. A country may decide to take that risk on behalf of its own citizens, but it is not reasonable to do so for other countries.

Btw Malmoe was obviously "placed" where it is while Scania was Danish.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

That is a stupid comparison.

Nuclear plants posses a certain danger and they should not be placed near major cities, that are difficult to evacuate and where the consequences of an accident would be tremendous - that is not hysteria, but prudent risk management. A country may decide to take that risk on behalf of its own citizens, but it is not reasonable to do so for other countries.

Btw Malmoe was obviously "placed" where it is while Scania was Danish.

Even in a worst case scenario both Copenhagen and Malmø were at enough distance to be safe (from radiation, not hysteria..). The risk zone around Barsebäck was about 10-20 km.

If have a city of some size it requires quite a lot of things to run, of which quite a few can be dangerous. If for example someone were to hijack a plane from Copenhagen Airport and fly it into Turning Torso lots more people would die than from a nuclear plant accident.

I am aware that Malmø was founded whilst Scania was Danish, that was my point. You can hardly blame modern politicians for having two cities (with associated dangers) in two different countries that close to each other. You can't expect there to be a safety zone around Copenhagen that would limit the growth of Malmø and other cities.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah like the Irish and Sellafield.

[Gustaf]

Hysteria over nuclear power kills a lot more people than nuclear power itself.

[Tender Branson]

Hysteria over nuclear power kills a lot more people than nuclear power itself.

What would be examples of this "hysteria" which is killing people ?

And how does these "hysteria" deaths beat the 1 Mio. + dead and maimed so far that nuclear energy caused ?

(Hiroshima, Nagasaki, nuke testings that resulted in massive cancer deaths in the former Soviet Union and Western US as well as the Pacific), Chernobyl & Fukushima disasters ? Not to mention all the people who live near nuclear reactors and who have much higher cancer rates than the people who live elsewhere, but which the nuclear lobby likes to keep in the drawers ?

You people are just crazy if you believe the nuclear lobby 1:1 ... get yourself a brain and not copy/paste what the lobbyists say.

[Simfan34]

Nuclear weapons =/= Nuclear power plants

[Tender Branson]

Nuclear weapons =/= Nuclear power plants

Don't try to spin ...

Nuclear weapons = nuclear power (just the destructive version of it).

Two sides of the same coin, of which both are killing tons of people.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Hysteria over nuclear power kills a lot more people than nuclear power itself.

What would be examples of this "hysteria" which is killing people ?

And how does these "hysteria" deaths beat the 1 Mio. + dead and maimed so far that nuclear energy caused ?

(Hiroshima, Nagasaki, nuke testings that resulted in massive cancer deaths in the former Soviet Union and Western US as well as the Pacific), Chernobyl & Fukushima disasters ? Not to mention all the people who live near nuclear reactors and who have much higher cancer rates than the people who live elsewhere, but which the nuclear lobby likes to keep in the drawers ?

You people are just crazy if you believe the nuclear lobby 1:1 ... get yourself a brain and not copy/paste what the lobbyists say.

You would need to source those statements...

[Mr. Morden]

Nuclear weapons =/= Nuclear power plants

Don't try to spin ...

Nuclear weapons = nuclear power (just the destructive version of it).

Two can play this game…

fighter jets = commercial jets (just the destructive version of it), so let's stop going on commercial flights

biological weapons = biological processes (just the destructive version of it), so let's put an end to photosynthesis while we can

mustard gas = mustard the condiment (just the destructive version of it)

I will never eat a hot dog with mustard again.  Doing so would be like an endorsement of the Holocaust.  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nuclear opponents would be far wiser to condemn the inevitable overruns, ridiculous subsidy (that makes renewable subsidy seem cheap), rising emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle, failed promises, unsuitability for developing countries and proliferation issues IMO, but I don't blame them for going for the jugular.

The comparison between nukes and nuclear bombs is a bit silly (unless you're going for a proliferation argument like we do with Iran, and could be made with this latest Insia deal), but could explain a lot of countries' residual opposition (especially in Japan, I would guess Hiroshima is an evocative image for that country's anti-nuke activists).