Nuclear Power in Germany

[Associate Justice PiT]

There are 1000 ways to produce electricity and 1000 ways to save energy.

Efficiency is an issue.

     Which is the issue with the anti-nuclear folks. They seem to neglect that there's only a small handful of ways to produce electricity in the amounts needed to sustain society as we know it. Unless we are going to undertake programs to greatly curb electricity usage, or else give everything we've got to developing nuclear fusion as a viable source of energy, we are stuck with nuclear fission for the time being.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obviously this thread mostly exists because a dispute on the subject was turning an elections thread into something different... but I'm genuinely curious about something (and have been for a while). While is Nuclear Power so controversial in Germany and Austria, even by the standards of other countries? It isn't without controversy in Britain, but only a minority of the population care greatly either way, while in Germany and Austria it seems to be an issue on which everyone has a genuine opinion.

Good question. I guess we would wonder why other countries are still so pro-nuclear... despite Chernobyl and all.

Chernobyl was certainly a pivotal moment that managed to solidify anti-nuclear opinions in Germany in many ways. The original anti-nuclear movement with first mass demonstrations sprung up during the early/mid-70s though.

I suppose excessive police violence against protesters (which itself stirred national debates) and the subsequent radicalization and counter-violence by protesters caused the polarization before 1986. Hence it became an issue where all bridges had been burned?

     Given the unique circumstances surrounding Chernobyl, opposing nuclear power because of it is utterly nonsensical. Less so with Fukushima, though the full extent of the crisis is as of yet unclear.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The "specialists" said a big Nuclear Meltdown is only one in 100000 years. I'm 43 years old and in my life there was 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Japan.

Under any definition of the word "big" you want to use, Three Mile Island didn't have a "big" meltdown.  Partial yes, (just like in Japan), but under no circumstances was it "big".  Chernobyl was big, yes, but it was caused by idiots.  Clearly it should be illegal for idiots to run nuclear power plants (or any power plants for that matter), but to suggest we shouldn't continue to utilize nuclear power as one of our many methods of getting electricity based on these three incidents is just silly.

     That's my issue with the notion of opposing nuclear power over Chernobyl. Given the gross negligence of the staff at the Chernobyl reactor & the poor design of the reactor, it's hardly representative of nuclear accidents. As you point out, nuclear power can be disastrous if handled by idiots, but so can many other things. If a drunk driver ran over 6 small children, I doubt many people would be calling for cars to be banned as being "too dangerous".

[Associate Justice PiT]

Chernobyl victims:
   

These are the consequences of nuclear power

     I could just as easily post pictures of mangled corpses with the caption: "These are the consequences of cars". That's an appeal to emotion, not logic.

I really don't like it when people frame the issue in the light of Chernobyl alone (though what's happening in Japan right now makes is less silly-sounding than before)...

So, quick reality check for the American Nuclear Brigade. Tell me how old the newest American nuclear power plant is, and speculate on the reasons why. Thank you.

     The newest reactor running is about 37 years old. I know many reactors that were planned to be built were cancelled, which I am guessing was a reaction to the events at Three Mile Island.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Three Mile Island happened six years after the completion of the last reactor, so no, guess again.

     Of course, but nuclear plants take years to complete. I guessed that there were ones being built at that time that were consequently scrapped. It was something of a wild guess, but I must admit that I don't really know why 1974 would be a significant year in the saga of nuclear fission as a source of energy.

I wasn't aware that cars were a source of energy. Huh.

     I didn't say that they were. I drew the parallel because, like nuclear energy, cars are a great boon to modern society that can become a great bane when accidents happen. An individual car accident is typically much less dangerous than an individual nuclear accident, but they also occur much more frequently.