# Germany Shutting Down Nuclear Power Plants?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [November 26, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290 "2003-11-26T01:19:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/61 "2003-12-01T17:04:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by WinstonSmith \*  
> \*\* So yes, it’s detectable, but why on earth would you classify it as a disaster? I’d venture with so small amounts than not a single German has died from anything resulting from Chernobyl. There are about 10.000 other things in Germany that’s more threatening to the average German. \*\*

Um, you still take TODAY’s level as a ledger to judging something that happened quite a while ago.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> It’s not really intelligent policy to say you close down nuclear plants from environmental concerns if you do not take into account the consequences of such a decision. \*\*

It’s not really intelligent criticism to say consequences have not been taken into account when you have no knowledge, let alone evidence, that such is actually the case.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Of course it’s possible another disaster can occur, but like Zoidberg says – we have to make a fair evaluation of the different risks involved in producing the energy we need.  
> \*\*

a)How do you know such has not been done? What do you know about the German energy market?

b)How precisely do you suggest making a fair evaluation over a time span of, say, 1,000 years? Cause that is very much a time frame that needs to be assessed when talking about nuclear power and its consequences. To assess the technologies available, and as such the risk posed by nuclear waste, at such a time is sheer folly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/62 "2003-12-01T17:28:34Z")

</div>

Longevity increases the risk of Cancer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ea666f/32.png) [@Nuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nuke)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/63 "2003-12-01T17:47:11Z")

</div>

The problem with Germany shutting down all their nuclear power plants is that they’re reducing the diversity of power sources they can use. I have no problem with using wind power, but it has to part of a multi-source program. For instance, if the price of producing power with coal goes through the roof, you as a utility don’t go bankrupt trying to deliver power at the same price as before. I think it was a very short-sighted to simply decide to shut the plants down prior to expiration of their licenses. Just ask the owners of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station about that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/64 "2003-12-01T17:50:52Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*To what? To counter something, there would have to be some arguments. All you had was slander, calling the usual green approach ‘radiation causes cancer’. Never mind that one of the ‘green’ deputy secretaries in the German ministry for environment and reactor safety is a physicist, and that the ranks of Green members of parliament include chemists and engineers.  
> \*\*

Most anti-nuclear rhetoric (whether from Greens or anybody else) that I hear does amount to this kind of oversimplification. It isn’t “slander” to point that out regardless of what you think. Of course the Greens have scientists working for them. So do their opponents. Proves nothing. Arguments from authority mean little.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I don’t think that you are in any position to complain about overheated rethoric, nor about people oversimplifying something. So far, that has been all you have been doing in this thread. Or did you want to claim that ‘greens in general on this issue are oversimplifying things’ is a particularly differentiated view?  
> But yeah, probably it is me who is muddying the waters.
> 
> Coincidentally, cancer risk during operation is the least of the reasons why those plants are shut down. \*\*

Really. I’ve been oversimplifying. Let’s see. I’ve made two points in this thread. First was the point that getting out of nuclear will probably mean increased greenhouse emissions. Second was my point to counter the idea that nuclear plants should be eliminated because they “cause cancer” without taking into account that there are risks (of cancer even) associated with doing so. Both of these points make it clear that the issue is _not simple_. And of course I’m aware that cancer risk during operation is not the main concern with nuclear power. Even the increased cancer from accidents still needs to be weighed against the cancer risks of other types of power generation. Now show me how this oversimplifies things again.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/65 "2003-12-01T17:57:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg \*  
> \*\*Most anti-nuclear rhetoric (whether from Greens or anybody else) that I hear does amount to this kind of oversimplification. \*\*

“That you hear”. Thanks. Your perception happens to have very little connection to fact.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> It isn’t “slander” to point that out regardless of what you think. \*\*

I think you are blaming others for your unwillingness to inform yourself on this issue.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Really. I’ve been oversimplifying. Let’s see. I’ve made two points in this thread. First was the point that getting out of nuclear will probably mean increased greenhouse emissions. Second was my point to counter the idea that nuclear plants should be eliminated because they “cause cancer” without taking into account that there are risks (of cancer even) associated with doing so. Both of these points make it clear that the issue is _not simple_. And of course I’m aware that cancer risk during operation is not the main concern with nuclear power. Even the increased cancer from accidents still needs to be weighed against the cancer risks of other types of power generation. Now show me how this oversimplifies things again. \*\*

I already showed where you oversimplified things. But obviously, you put as much effort into reading posts in this thread as into informing yourself as to what the position of “The Greens” is. Given that you are incapable of showing even the minimum politeness of actually reading the posts you reply to, I don’t think it will help much if I point out that your claiming that “radiation causes cancer” was the position of ‘the Greens’ towards nuclear power was an oversimplification. But I take it that in your eyes, you don’t oversimplify simply as a matter of definition.

Now you come with ‘even the increased cancer from accidents’. I would SERIOUSLY suggest you acquire a minimum background knowledge of what the positions in the discussion actually are rather than simply spooling a standard program of arguments that have little bearing to anything actually said by anyone else.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/66 "2003-12-01T18:13:37Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*“That you hear”. Thanks. Your perception happens to have very little connection to fact.  
> \*\*

One can only judge people’s positions from what one hears them say.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I think you are blaming others for your unwillingness to inform yourself on this issue.  
> \*\*

Your implication that I’m not informed on the issues is obviously bullshit as anyone can see by reading this thread. But if you think I’m not informed enough why not inform me and everyone else here with what you obviosly think are the real facts.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I already showed where you oversimplified things. But obviously, you put as much effort into reading posts in this thread as into informing yourself as to what the position of “The Greens” is. Given that you are incapable of showing even the minimum politeness of actually reading the posts you reply to, I don’t think it will help much if I point out that your claiming that “radiation causes cancer” was the position of ‘the Greens’ towards nuclear power was an oversimplification. But I take it that in your eyes, you don’t oversimplify simply as a matter of definition.
> 
> Now you come with ‘even the increased cancer from accidents’. I would SERIOUSLY suggest you acquire a minimum background knowledge of what the positions in the discussion actually are rather than simply spooling a standard program of arguments that have little bearing to anything actually said by anyone else. \*\*

If you think my assesment of the Greens position is wrong then tell us what you think it is and what it might be based on.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/67 "2003-12-01T18:23:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by WinstonSmith \*  
> **I have never heard of any health warnings that mushrooms or wild game should be avoided – however in Faeroe Island, where my family is from (and a place quite without any industry of it’s own), there have recently been made quite high measurements of lead and other heavy metals in school children, also in Denmark people are now advised to only eat fish once a week and pregnant mothers not at all because of the high level of metals. Both very likely to be at least partially the result of coal-powered electricity plants.**

The Faroe Island studies I know of showed that there were elevated levels of mercury in children, as measured at birth and I believe at the age of 7 for comparison (as opposed to the Seychelles study, which measured them between ages 5-12). It is important to note that the study noted no actual health effects from mercury in either case, and the studies “support(ed) the EPA threshold (equivalent to one-tenth ounce of mercury per year for a 150 pound individual)” (EPRI Congressional Testimony, 2001). There was also, in the Faroes, a complex effect noted due to the presence of PCBs as well.

There were also studies in Japan and Iraq, but I don’t have those results nearby me.

IMO any mercury level is too much. However, sadly, to live in an industrialized world there will always be some exposure to mercury.

Depending on which model you look at (further complicated by the fact that mercury seems to be a globally-travelling pollutant, like CO2) it is difficult to say how much comes from coal combustion. A good guess by EPRI seems to be 25%. An alarmingly large amount of mercury seems to come from Chinese manufacturing - by some estimates, maybe as much as a third of the entire world total. However, mercury modeling and tracking has been notoriously problematic, and so it’s too tell.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/68 "2003-12-01T18:46:15Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg \*  
> \*\*One can only judge people’s positions from what one hears them say. \*\*

The question is if one seeks out to hear what they have to say, or simply hold his ears shit

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Your implication that I’m not informed on the issues is obviously bullshit as anyone can see by reading this thread. But if you think I’m not informed enough why not inform me and everyone else here with what you obviosly think are the real facts. \*\*

Quite the contrary, it is obviously bullshit that you have an idea about this issue. Cause, you see, I went to the website of the German Green party and accessed their program on energy policy. Lo and behold, I can’t find the word ‘cancer’ there. Hm. Strange, isn’t it? After all, you say that “Radiation causes cancer” is their only argument. Funnily enough, I find the word “waste” there several times.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> If you think my assesment of the Greens position is wrong then tell us what you think it is and what it might be based on. \*\*

Your ‘assessment’, as I already pointed out, is propaganda bullshit.

Their goal is a general trend towards renewable energy, and, to make sure during the transition period, that the power demands are met by as environmentally friendly technologies as possible, without heaving the burden of the drawbacks on future generations. e.g. moving from ‘dirty’ fossil fuels to cleaner high-efficiency gas power plants, expanding combined heat-and-power production, pushing solar, wind and other renewables, and encouraging those who can to produce their own power (i.e. farms using biomass combustion) by liberalizing the energy market.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/69 "2003-12-01T19:04:47Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*The question is if one seeks out to hear what they have to say, or simply hold his ears shit
> 
> Quite the contrary, it is obviously bullshit that you have an idea about this issue. Cause, you see, I went to the website of the German Green party and accessed their program on energy policy. Lo and behold, I can’t find the word ‘cancer’ there. Hm. Strange, isn’t it? After all, you say that “Radiation causes cancer” is their only argument. Funnily enough, I find the word “waste” there several times.  
> \*\*

So you couldn’t find my exact wording there. That’s nice. So why is “waste” a problem? Mainly because of its toxicity to humans and other life forms. But the risk analysis approach applies there too. If nuclear is eliminated we get other forms of “waste”. Which is worse?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Your ‘assessment’, as I already pointed out, is propaganda bullshit.
> 
> Their goal is a general trend towards renewable energy, and, to make sure during the transition period, that the power demands are met by as environmentally friendly technologies as possible, without heaving the burden of the drawbacks on future generations. e.g. moving from ‘dirty’ fossil fuels to cleaner high-efficiency gas power plants, expanding combined heat-and-power production, pushing solar, wind and other renewables, and encouraging those who can to produce their own power (i.e. farms using biomass combustion) by liberalizing the energy market. \*\*

All of which is great. But shutting down existing nuclear capacity will still mainly just increase use of fossil fuel. I admit to having a bias against fossil fuels though. And even solar (which I favor) has toxic by-products.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/70 "2003-12-01T19:34:55Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg \*  
> \*\*So you couldn’t find my exact wording there. That’s nice. \*\*

I.e. your claim about their argument was wrong.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> So why is “waste” a problem? Mainly because of its toxicity to humans and other life forms. But the risk analysis approach applies there too. If nuclear is eliminated we get other forms of “waste”. Which is worse? \*\*

The waste produced by other technologies is pretty well defined, and can, in fact, be controlled to a large extent. (\*) It’s toxicity is usually also quite limited temporally. The nuclear industry so far has been exempt from bringing the most basic concept of waste care to begin with, the likes of which are required by pretty much ANY industry prior to STARTING business, and what precisely happens in those tanks with heavily radioactive waste is pretty much anybody’s guess. Totally aside from that, a risk assessment over the entire period the waste poses a danger is pretty much impossible, since the period is too long to really make predictions.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> All of which is great. But shutting down existing nuclear capacity will still mainly just increase use of fossil fuel. I admit to having a bias against fossil fuels though. And even solar (which I favor) has toxic by-products. \*\*

Sorry, but that is far from a logical conclusion. While it might be realistic that energy demands won’t decrease, energy conservation is one of the party’s hallmark policies. Aside from that, you assume no reserves exist.  
Renewable energy has grown in Germany quite more rapidly than fossil fuel, and there is no reason to assume that would change -at the least until the next general election, which is still a while off.

The downside of renewable energies so far has been that R&D was not as far as other energy sources. That is changing, not the least due to policies by the Greens. Wind energy now is already practically as economically feasible on a cost per kWh basis.

(\*)My birth city’s municipal combined heat and power plant is running a side business with gypsum from getting sulfur oxides out of their exhaust, for example.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ea666f/32.png) [@Nuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nuke)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/71 "2003-12-01T19:50:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*The waste produced by other technologies is pretty well defined, and can, in fact, be controlled to a large extent. (_) It’s toxicity is usually also quite limited temporally. The nuclear industry so far has been exempt from bringing the most basic concept of waste care to begin with, the likes of which are required by pretty much ANY industry prior to STARTING business, and what precisely happens in those tanks with heavily radioactive waste is pretty much anybody’s guess. Totally aside from that, a risk assessment over the entire period the waste poses a danger is pretty much impossible, since the period is too long to really make predictions.\*\*

Beg to differ with you here. At the nuclear power plant I work at we know exactly how much waste we generate and we know exactly where all of it is. The same is true at every other nuclear power facility in the USA. Radioactive waste is highly controlled and transported under strict guidelines and security. Numerous laws and regulations exist for the storage and transport of radioactive waste to ensure the safety of the public. We also know exactly what’s going on in “those tanks”, i.e., the waste is sitting there.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/72 "2003-12-01T20:14:24Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*  
> The waste produced by other technologies is pretty well defined, and can, in fact, be controlled to a large extent. (_) It’s toxicity is usually also quite limited temporally.  
> \*\*

Unless you consider an ongoing greenhouse climate disaster over centuries to be “temporally limited”. Granted, that’s not “toxicity” in the usual sense, unless you are alergic to heat.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*The nuclear industry so far has been exempt from bringing the most basic concept of waste care to begin with, the likes of which are required by pretty much ANY industry prior to STARTING business, and what precisely happens in those tanks with heavily radioactive waste is pretty much anybody’s guess. Totally aside from that, a risk assessment over the entire period the waste poses a danger is pretty much impossible, since the period is too long to really make predictions.  
> \*\*

I don’t know what the case in Germany is but here it is as Nuke said. We know where all our stuff is and the whole thing is very tightly regulated. As for the period being too long to make predictions. Nuclear radiation is one of the most quantifiable things imaginable. We know what the half-lives of all this stuff are.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Sorry, but that is far from a logical conclusion. While it might be realistic that energy demands won’t decrease, energy conservation is one of the party’s hallmark policies. Aside from that, you assume no reserves exist.  
> \*\*

I can’t find the original news article that started this but I seem to remember that even the Green party was admitting that it would lead to more fossil fuel usage. And reserves? Reserves of what? Existing power generating capacity presumably. But that just backs up my point. Your fossil fuel plants will have to crank out more power.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/73 "2003-12-01T20:47:42Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by KenGr \*  
> \*\*Oh Lord! This is so painful.
> 
> The French are… are… are… right.\*\*

This is silly, for the reasons I already pointed out. The case for the french is an entirely different one.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Seriously, the German decision was part of a political deal made with the Green Party (who have enough power in Germany to affect which coalition is in the majority). The Green position was that forcing the shutdown would eliminate the nuclear plants they opposed and would result in renewable power sources being used. As you read, they now appear to only be successful in the first half of the bargain due to the practicalities of building large amounts of renewable energy facilities.\*\*

This is factually wrong. In fact, Germany is now seen as exemplary by international organisations in its push for renewable energies (such as, for example, in Worldwatch’s “State if the World 2003”)

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> The energy industry in Germany continues to maintain that the plan is stupid and will be cancelled before the newer (and more efficient) nuclear plants are closed. As I understand, the Greens are reassessing the deal and trying to choose between what they perceive as two evils. \*\*

You seem to be understanding a lot of things that pretty much no one else understands.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/74 "2003-12-01T20:50:53Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Nuke \*  
> \*\*Beg to differ with you here. At the nuclear power plant I work at we know exactly how much waste we generate and we know exactly where all of it is. \*\*

Do you know where it will be 1000 years from now? No? Case closed.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\* We also know exactly what’s going on in “those tanks”, i.e., the waste is sitting there. \*\*

That is complete and utter hogwash, sorry. The waste isn’t sitting there, it is undergoing nuclear decay and various chemical reactions. And if you claim to know what’s in there at a given moment without opening the pot and taking a sample, sorry if I laugh.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/75 "2003-12-01T20:58:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg \*  
> **Unless you consider an ongoing greenhouse climate disaster over centuries to be “temporally limited”. Granted, that’s not “toxicity” in the usual sense, unless you are alergic to heat.**

Except, of course, that Germany is moving to reduce its output of Greenhouse gases.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I don’t know what the case in Germany is but here it is as Nuke said. We know where all our stuff is and the whole thing is very tightly regulated. As for the period being too long to make predictions. Nuclear radiation is one of the most quantifiable things imaginable. We know what the half-lives of all this stuff are. \*\*

No, you don’t. To know the half-lives, you have to know the actual elements present. To know about the toxicity, you need to know the chemical compounds present. Both changes over time.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I can’t find the original news article that started this but I seem to remember that even the Green party was admitting that it would lead to more fossil fuel usage. And reserves? Reserves of what? Existing power generating capacity presumably. But that just backs up my point. Your fossil fuel plants will have to crank out more power. \*\*

Huh? Apparently, you don’t quite know the meaning of the word ‘reserve’. It means you can go down with the production in a pinch. It means you don’t really NEED to produce as much power as you currently do to meet demands.

The nuclear power plants won’t be switched off tomorrow. They will be phased out. By the time the last one is switched off, R&D in other fields will have proceeded much further.

Second, power output does not equal waste output. You can increase power output without increasing waste by increasing efficiency.

As such, your entire case rests on ignoring the potential problems in technologies you prefer, while arguing a worst case scenario for those you dislike. The fact that the Green party is going the practical way in between is lost to you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/76 "2003-12-01T21:37:34Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*Except, of course, that Germany is moving to reduce its output of Greenhouse gases.
> 
> \*\*

A goal I doubt they’ll achieve this way.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> No, you don’t. To know the half-lives, you have to know the actual elements present. To know about the toxicity, you need to know the chemical compounds present. Both changes over time.  
> \*\*

What? Are you suggesting that we don’t know what the nuclear waste we produce is? And yes, radioactive decay products change over time but it a well known, predictable way.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As such, your entire case rests on ignoring the potential problems in technologies you prefer, while arguing a worst case scenario for those you dislike. The fact that the Green party is going the practical way in between is lost to you. \*\*

I only “favor” nuclear power except when compared to fossil fuel. If it is possible to phase out some of the power generating capacity without blackouts or brownouts then why not phase out some coal plants and leave the nukes while expanding renewables. That would guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/77 "2003-12-01T21:42:44Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*Except, of course, that Germany is moving to reduce its output of Greenhouse gases.
> 
> \*\*

A goal I doubt they’ll achieve this way.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> No, you don’t. To know the half-lives, you have to know the actual elements present. To know about the toxicity, you need to know the chemical compounds present. Both changes over time.  
> \*\*

What? Are you suggesting that we don’t know what the nuclear waste we produce is? And yes, radioactive decay products change over time but it a well known, predictable way.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As such, your entire case rests on ignoring the potential problems in technologies you prefer, while arguing a worst case scenario for those you dislike. The fact that the Green party is going the practical way in between is lost to you. \*\*

I only “favor” nuclear power except when compared to fossil fuel. If it is possible to phase out some of the power generating capacity without blackouts or brownouts then why not phase out some coal plants and leave the nukes while expanding renewables. That would guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/78 "2003-12-01T21:54:01Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg \*  
> **A goal I doubt they’ll achieve this way.**

What you doubt could not possibly be of less relevance. You would need a far closer familiarity with the German energy market to even make a credible assessment.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> What? Are you suggesting that we don’t know what the nuclear waste we produce is? And yes, radioactive decay products change over time but it a well known, predictable way.  
> \*\*

Nuclear waste isn’t just spent rods. It is a whole bunch of other stuff. And the only thing that’s semi-predictable is the nuclear decay, and even that is merely a statistical average. There are plenty of other compounds which have to be stored as nuclear waste which can undergo a plethora of chemical reactions, and do so easily given the heat released by the nuclear decay.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I only “favor” nuclear power except when compared to fossil fuel. If it is possible to phase out some of the power generating capacity without blackouts or brownouts then why not phase out some coal plants and leave the nukes while expanding renewables. That would guarantee a reduction in carbon emissions. \*\*

As a matter of fact, it wouldn’t. Most nuclear power plants are outside the big cities. Most coal plants are near big city and serve as combined heat and power plants. As such, they have a pretty high efficiency, and if you shut them down, you would have to produce the heat by other means. Meaning you would move from burning fuel to generate electricity AND heat to burning fuel locally in each house just to produce heat. Through oil or gas ovens. Which, do you think, is the more efficient use of fuel?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Inoshiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a9adbd/32.png) [@Inoshiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inoshiro)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/79 "2003-12-01T22:14:18Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by OliverH \*  
> \*\*  
> Nuclear waste isn’t just spent rods. It is a whole bunch of other stuff. And the only thing that’s semi-predictable is the nuclear decay, and even that is merely a statistical average. There are plenty of other compounds which have to be stored as nuclear waste which can undergo a plethora of chemical reactions, and do so easily given the heat released by the nuclear decay.  
> \*\*

When there are molar quantities of a substance it is not accurate to say that we have “merely” a statistical average. Nuclear decay is extremely predictable on the macro scale. The only thing that is somewhat uncertain is the behavior of individual atoms, which no one cares about.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As a matter of fact, it wouldn’t. Most nuclear power plants are outside the big cities. Most coal plants are near big city and serve as combined heat and power plants. As such, they have a pretty high efficiency, and if you shut them down, you would have to produce the heat by other means. Meaning you would move from burning fuel to generate electricity AND heat to burning fuel locally in each house just to produce heat. Through oil or gas ovens. Which, do you think, is the more efficient use of fuel? \*\*

Alright, I see how that makes sense. We do not do much of this here in the states and in many places all or most heating is electrical. We also need quite a bit of cooling in the southern states. Also electrical.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290/80 "2003-12-01T22:44:16Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg \*  
> \*\*When there are molar quantities of a substance it is not accurate to say that we have “merely” a statistical average. Nuclear decay is extremely predictable on the macro scale. The only thing that is somewhat uncertain is the behavior of individual atoms, which no one cares about. \*\*

a)You completely ignore the chemical reactions  
b)You are mistaking about the only uncertain thing being the behavior of individual atoms. Add to that the behavior of the containers over a long-term period. When constantly bombarded with radiation from the contents, I doubt the consequences are forseeable.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Alright, I see how that makes sense. We do not do much of this here in the states and in many places all or most heating is electrical. We also need quite a bit of cooling in the southern states. Also electrical. \*\*

I know, I lived in Texas for over three years. Coincidentally, heating through electricity is about the worst efficient way possible. Totally aside from the fact that it is plain silly to transform heat into electricity first at the power plant, only to transform it into heat again…

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-shutting-down-nuclear-power-plants/215290.md?page=5)