The New York Times‘ Alan Cowell had a piece (6/2/11) about public opposition to nuclear power in Germany, and the fact that the country’s political leadership has decided to establish policies that conform to that sentiment. It apparently left the Times a bit perplexed:
But the German move also raised a question whose answer seemed elusive: What is there in this land of 82 million people that has, over decades, bred an aversion to nuclear energy that seems unrivaled among its economic peers, defying its reputation for reasoned debate?
Cowell reveals that Germans overwhelmingly oppose nuclear power, especially after the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Anti-nuclear feelings surfaced much earlier, though:
There is little doubt that Germany’s modern history has combined to produce a deep strain of risk aversion, of caution, and a dislike for surprises, all of which magnify the potential hazards of nuclear energy, producing a perception that is different from that of other major European economies like France or Britain.
Risk aversion and caution produces a “perception” that is different than in other places. I am not even sure what that means, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable.
The Times wasn’t the only outlet slamming Germany’s anti-nukes move. The Washington Post editorial page was unimpressed with Germany’s turn toward renewables–a bad idea, “since sometimes the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.” Read Miranda Spencer’s recent Extra! article for a good corrective on that.
The Post added:
Instead of providing a model for greening a post-industrial economy, Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table. Panicked overreaction isn’t the right response to the partial meltdowns in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex
The lesson of Fukushima, then, should be that the world really needs nuclear power. Apparently that kind of logic is what the Post means by a more “reasoned debate”?
At least Cowell didn’t suggest that German opposition to nuclear power was a sign of crypto-Naziism, as Newsweek’s Stefan Thiel did:
https://fair.org/blog/2010/06/01/newsweek-still-pushing-phony-climate-controversy/
“(S)ometimes the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine” …
But you can always count on the corpress to twist reality to suit its purposes, can’t you?
You beat me to the punch, Mr. Hart. I wanted to write about that as soon as I saw it in the paper yesterday, but waited. The paragraph (But the German move…reputation for reasoned debate) really says it all. I caught the bias immediately.
@lexiconstable
Why waste time reading corporate nooze media?
> The lesson of Fukushima, then, should be that the world really needs nuclear power.
Uh … the GD crisis is still underway … why don’t we wait for a while and see what the resolution really is before start talking about the lesson from, eh ???
I happen to agree that nuclear power, if human beings can manage it responsibly would be a good source of energy. There seems to be little evidence that we can manage almost anything safely … we cannot even grow cucumbers that do not kill some people – so the question has to stay open until we get another piece in this puzzle.
Nuclear power must be banned from all existing or potential biospheres. I have no objections to it if assembled in space, outside of earth- or any other planet’s- orbit. It might be useful for interstellar travel, someday. After our species has survived our hyperaggressive ‘teenage boy’ phase…. But, after Fukushima, it is nuclear PROPONENTS who must respond to charges of ‘irrationality’ !
I would consider it irrational as well.
Here are the facts as I see them:
The 17 reactors have operated for numerous years without having harmed a single person.
The choices for replacing the energy produced by nuclear are reducing economic output and quality of life or increasing generation elsewhere.
If generation is increased, it is more many orders of magnitude more likely that will come from either or some combination of new nuclear in czechoslovakia or additional coal generation in other countries buying their coal from Germany and exporting the electricity back.
You may agree with the recent UN report that “renewables will save the world”, but if you read the report closely, you will find that in order to meet their assumptions, they had to define renewables to include breeder reactors which are considered renewable as long as their breed ratio is maintained slightly greater than 1.
I implore your readers/listeners to please take as close and reasoned of a look at the alternatives to nuclear as they do toward nuclear. Fukushima should be looked at as more of a success than a failure. Yes, the plant will not operate again. Yes, the plant did, for a short time, release some relatively harmless material. Compared to the guaranteed damage coal, oil, and natural gas would have done in the intervening 35 years between when the facility was put into service and when the tsunami hit, and the net positive is enormous.
Yes, nuclear. Yes, in my back yard. Yes, now.
In its analysis, perhaps the German government was also looking at this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html
I agree that global warming is a greater threat than nuclear power plants. In fact, it is the greatest threat we face right now. But nuclear power plants are still a HUGE threat. And it’s not just from natural disasters. There is also a huge threat from terrorist attacks on the plants, from nuclear arms proliferation, and from terrorists getting nuclear material for “dirty” explosives. AND we still do not know how to deal with the waste, making all these threats very long-term.
The risks are so high that no company is willing to take them on, which means the risks fall on all of us. So even though not everyone will be harmed physically when one of these risks come to fruition, we all will suffer financially.
Even if they were not so dangerous, they are incredibly expensive and take many years to build. There are other solutions that are much cheaper and can be put into use much more quickly. The global warming threat is so urgent that we don’t have time to wait for new nuclear power plants to be built, even if they were not risky at all. This is the main reason I am against new nuclear power plants as part of the solution to global warming.
The UN report did not need to rely on nuclear power. They included it because it is one of the possible alternatives to fossil fuels, not because we can’t do without them. There is enough safe AND renewable energy from sunlight, wind, waves, tides, and heat from the earth to supply the worlds energy needs many times over, with no need for fossil fuels or nuclear power. Add improving efficiency to the mix, and this is even more true. It would be a waste of time and money, both in short supply, to build any new nuclear power plants as a solution to global warming.
However, I definitely think that we should keep existing nuclear power plants online, with safety upgrades to minimize the risks, until our transition to safe renewable power sources has gone far enough that atmospheric CO2 levels fall to 350 ppm (or whatever the safe level is determined to be). Safety upgrades would be even more cost-effective and take less time than creating new safe renewable power sources.
In the face of the most dangerous and urgent threat in human history, we must think clearly and act quickly with all our energy, or we will lose everything.
The more interesting question is, why do Americans think nuclear technology is manageable, even though America can’t even have a single train pull in in time and has had its share of accidents?
Maybe it is the historic experience of being able to conquer a huge continent, exterminate the Native Americans, enslave black people, and get away with it, and so, in essence, being able to move on to the next pristine place after having messed up the last one.
Good article. Risk aversion….. that is a definite part of the DNA of all Liberals.
Can we get any coverage of climate change in the media?
Perhaps its their technological bent, without the baggage of ‘Christian’ born agains, that allows the German people to factor in what an extraordinary bad deal nuclear power offers. Massive subsidies and offloading costs of waste and possible (likely?) accidental ‘spills’ to tax payers is not a practical solution for their world.
Robin Holt: “The choices for replacing the energy produced by nuclear are reducing economic output and quality of life or increasing generation elsewhere.” Really? Go tell it to the Austrians. Their constitution forbids nuclear power plants. They are one of the wealthiest nations.
They have a stable manufacturing base. They aren’t the constant losers in trade (like the US), holding their own with their major partner, Germany. Their infrastructure is in very good shape. And their unemployment rate was about 4.7% just a couple of months ago – which the Austrians find worrisome. (The US considers 5% to be full employment.)
J.c Mack…..
I am so glad you brought up Austria.A country with the German mark of excellence, and French zest for life.A country that forswore taking outside loans.Stayed on what for us would of been the gold standard.Fantastic debt and credit standards. A completely armed citizenry with Low crime. Kept their unions under control. Salaries based on productivity.Built a country based on a love of success and yes MONEY.And were able to afford socialist style excesses as a pad for those who can not or will not achieve.They are- i agree ,in many ways a model country.As far as Austria being non nuclear….it may not be for long.Up till now Austria’s massive hydro plants and resources covered 70% of her needs.New gas and coal plants covering the rest.But when she signed the kyoto accords she was not able to meet her carbon emission goals as promised.So she either trashes the accords, or goes nuclear.Funny she did so well being a country unto herself.Signs an accord and has to reconfigure her economy.Join the crowd!
Wow, Robin Holt, you wrote this: “Fukushima should be looked at as more of a success than a failure. Yes, the plant will not operate again. Yes, the plant did, for a short time, release some relatively harmless material.” (emphasis mine–TimN) You need help, kiddo, and I’m not qualified to give it. Oh, and just how fuckin’ big is your back yard? It better be as big as the nether regions around Jupiter–then, to paraphrase Ron linville, the poster above you, you can run your marvelous plants without concern.
michael e, On what do you base your suggestion that Austria will not remain non-nuclear? The question was put up for a vote some years back. It’s now in their constitution.
One of the only real dangers in the Austrian economy is a too-heavy realiance on the financial sector. It is finance heavy.
Do you have a source for that keeping their unions under control bit? I recently read that (heavily unionized) construction workers were getting a fairly hefty raise. I believe it’s as unsupportable as the expectation that they won’t be non-nuclear for much longer.
Completely armed citizenry? Nicht treu. Gun laws are certainly not the strictest, but there are definite restrictions (federal). Guns must be registered, owners licensed; and to get a license, one must prove legitimate reason for ownership and pass a background check. No automatic weapons are permissible, including automatic pistols. The NRA lists Austrian handgun ownership at about 10%. That’s right: the NRA.
Sorry, but your information is in need of upgrading. Back to Schule for you!
michael e, I forgot: Austria is part of the Euro zone. Their currency is the same as that of, e.g., Germany, France, Greece, Ireland, Finland… a total of 17 nations.
Yes, I know: I spelled it wrong: eurozone. Also euro area, I believe.
Austria is very armed en total. Handguns much less so.Not so much do to restriction as to need.It is a very safe society.I did not mean to indicate everybody is packing.Switzerland is simarly also near 100%armed. All citizens receive their military weapons at end of service. Again less handguns due to need- not restrictions.My litany on Austria was more history based(1940s onward)than current.You are correct that the switch to the Euro…the rise of union powers self servitude, separate from the needs of the whole, and tied to political power has been a drain.
Too heavy on the finance sector?That since the downturn?They have been resilient and stable naturally but if you are seeing this weakness i must admit I may have to study a bit to see their economic indicators in the last 2 years.Before than my knowledge of them was not in agreement with your statement
As far as turning toward nuclear Im simply doing the math.I respect their beliefs.It simply cannot go on that they turn from all forms but hydro.We are suffering here from such beliefs.No nuclear,no gas,oil ,or coal…..What is left?So called green forms.That will give us about 7-18%.What then?
To all those who defend nuclear power: shoudln’t we at least try the alternative first? Here in Southern California we have a lot of sun. Why are we using oil, coal, gas and nuclear then? I will gladly join you guys’ camp and support nuclear power once we have put all our energy into renewable and safe energy, reduced our consumption, moved towards mass transit and local and small economics, and still came up short.
michael e
You simply don’t know what you are talking about.
Austrians own 30.4 guns per 100 people, many being in the hands of those who own multiple guns: hunters, collectors, etc. Far from 100% where I went to school. (And Switzerland is not Austria.) In the US, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people.
I said nothing about the euro, except that it is Austria’s currency, refuting the statements you made concerning Austria’s controls on its currency. Please don’t speak for me.
To the best of my knowledge, the makeup of the Austrian economy hasn’t changed greatly due to the economic downturn. Some have wondered that they fared so well, being so heavily weighted to banking/ finance. Then again, there’s that constitution: at least one banking regulation I know of is written into their constitution. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are others.
In fact, Austrian industry overall, including the financial industry, is well-regulated. (Unlike the economic disaster known as the US.)
Your ‘math’ regarding nuclear energy is also faulty. Again, it is *unconstitutional*. You might take a look at what Europe is actually doing on the green energy front, before you take to the keyboard again.
Lastly, trying to save face suggesting you were speaking historically is absurd. I was obviously referring to current conditions – and so were you. I haven’t time to straighten out history for you.
You need better sources of information. In fact, I suggest you stop now before you embarrass yourself further.
Well as far as you gun numbers…ive seen them,and they are skewed. Almost Every MAN in Switzerland has arms,or clear access to them..So i suppose you could pull numbers like 45%(pop of men vs women),where household would be near 100%. Austria might be a few points lower … maybe around 80% but the fuzzy math is the same. The funny thing is is these lists put us at number one. Around 88% as i recall. Ridiculous!88% of Americans are not armed.That would automatically make 40% of woman armed! Though if you took the total amount of weapons floating about it may be around 3000%! :)
As far as historically moving to present concerning Austria money supply ,and the safety limits imposed to keep them on what i euphemistically their gold standard-where is the beef?I see nothing wrong with the statement.Now that i have addressed you sidebars
It is true that Austria has it in their constitution(And yes it is funny that a lib puts pathos on other countries rag but cares little for his own)I simply stated that in my opinion I see no way for them not to eventually tap nuclear energy.The numbers are not there.Austria will not at present or in any known future be able to use green forms to power her industry,and people to that degree.Of course they are an amazing people,and I hope them the best.But in the future we are looking at a shortfall of around 50%.Germany is leading the world in windmill use.i think we are second.Any idea what the percentages are?Will Austria have to fudge their constitution.Yup I think so.Build one on the far bank of their border , underwrite the building and lease the usage.Who knows how they will do it.The debate has begun.I just don’t see the numbers flowing their way.If you do,spit it out.Or are you lib enough to recommend they go back to horse and buggy?
Ps if you are pointing to Austria to bolster some argument that this country would be better off under the strict serfdom to government regulation as you perceive Austria is ….save it.We also have a constitution.Austria fits neatly into the theory that certain factors(economic),certain strengths endemic in a society allow for the grafting of wasteful socialist ideals.A narcotic for the underclass.We are not built that way.If that is your argument, again ……save it.It sounds like you are touching on the glory’s of socialist Europe.
michael e, Why do you insist upon embarrassing yourself?
With every post, you become increasingly ridiculous.
Your ‘information’ is flawed. You know nothing of Austria.
I have friends and associates in Austrian, and when I get a chance to email each of them, I’m going to be certain to include links to this falderal. They’ll love it.
You keep saying i do not know what i am speaking about.Yet you dont say why.The only” argument”we are having is simply the nuclear projection.And of course that is just my gut feeling.Only time will tell if something is invented that can make up the shortfall.God knows Obama came into office promising such.As for the rest of it ,what is it YOU are saying.That Austria is a socialist republic .Unarmed…..Incapable of moving away from their green philosophy even if it means collapse.Paint Austria as you see them instead of simply carping about the edges of my numbers(classic lib waste of time).Or better put…my time in Austria and the things Ive learned about it dovetail nicely with the facts ive seen about their society.If you think i am seeing the wrong picture,step up and paint me yours.Although I will tell you the lib vision of America bears no resemblance to the america I live in so……..
I gave you reasons. I gave you facts and figures. Apparently you simply don’t like them. (And you misinterpreted the gun figures.)
I suspect your only visit to Austria was watching The Sound of Music.
I have no idea what your rant is supposed to be about. You might consider professional help. But you’ll get nothing more from me.
Servus
J C Mack……….Funny line that……..(The sound of music bit)
I have a feeling that if and when Austria accepts energy from nuclear power that I will get no apologies from you.Till then……….Lebe wohl! Auf wiedersehen
I implore your readers/listeners to please take as close and reasoned of a look at the alternatives to nuclear as they do toward nuclear.