# There was no nuclear disaster at Fukushima **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2023, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796 "2023-09-27T22:10:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/161 "2023-09-30T00:13:46Z")
What kind of evidence would be convincing to you beyond what’s already been posted? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > No, I don’t accept that this is at the same scale, or significantly beyond, all of the other things I mentioned. If you don’t think accelerating climate change is at the same scale as those things, then I’m not sure what else to say. Here in California, we’ve (probably) managed to keep our local nuclear plant (Diablo Canyon) open for several more years. This is an unequivocal good for the climate. It’s been pressured to close for years now, with renewed effort due to Fukushima, but thankfully our leadership has managed to weigh the risks properly and has kept it open. Such efforts were not successful in Germany, and that has been an unequivocal loss for climate change. It was a deeply stupid move on their part and harmful to the planet. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/162 "2023-09-30T00:23:12Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > And this is _hyperbole_. I live in a country that has banned nuclear ships since 1994, that will never ever have nuclear power, and we are doing just _fine_. The damage that the satanic panic caused in the 80’s is akin to the trans panic that we are going through now. It is _nothing_ like what we are seeing in regards to nuclear power. Not even on the same planet. Unfortunately, it is all on the same planet. And therein lies the harm. All of those countries that slashed their nuclear power generation, they didn’t just cut their consumption of electricity. They replaced it all with other power plants, mostly fossil fuels, which are ruining the planet’s climate. And which also, incidentally, release more radioactive waste than the nuclear plants ever did (even including Chernobyl) @Banquet_Bear , you want evidence that the public is freaking out? I refer you to your very own posts. You’re one of the members of the public who is freaking out. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/163 "2023-09-30T00:28:37Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Such efforts were not successful in Germany, and that has been an unequivocal loss for climate change. It was a deeply stupid move on their part and harmful to the planet. I thought Germany was doing pretty well getting away from fossil fuels? > Germany has been a leading market and incubator for [onshore wind](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_o#onshore_wind) power throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, as eager investors and guaranteed state support helped bring the technology to scale. While domestic expansion has slowed in recent years, the country still boasted the largest cumulative [onshore wind](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_o#onshore_wind) capacity in Europe and the [third largest](https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Annual-Wind-Report-2022_screen_final_April.pdf)globally in 2022. - [SOURCE](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/german-onshore-wind-power-output-business-and-perspectives) [![](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2022_0.png) ](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/paragraph_text_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2022_0.png) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/164 "2023-09-30T00:34:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I thought Germany was doing pretty well getting away from fossil fuels? ~50% fossil fuels is not great. Especially when such a high proportion is from coal. They continue to build out renewables and increase their efficiency. But that does not take away from the fact that they could be _even further along_ had they not closed their nuclear plants. If a country is _already_ 100% carbon free, and can close their nuclear plants without burning more fossil fuels (whether by importing energy or otherwise), then more power to them. Germany is not yet in such a state. Every GW of nuclear energy that they eliminate is a GW of coal energy that they _could_ have eliminated, but didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/165 "2023-09-30T00:35:00Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > What kind of evidence would be convincing to you beyond what’s already been posted? …evidence that they are “shutting down nuclear power plants due to falsely perceived dangers” for a start. Thats a pretty specific allegation. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > If you don’t think accelerating climate change is at the same scale as those things, then I’m not sure what else to say. But “accelerating climate change” and “nuclear power” are _two different things_. For example, New Zealand doesn’t have nuclear power. Building a nuclear power-plant would very much likely bankrupt the country. So by choosing _not_ to invest in a nuclear power plant, are we not doing our part in combatting global climate change? Talk me through the logic here. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Such efforts were not successful in Germany, and that has been an unequivocal loss for climate change. It was a deeply stupid move on their part and harmful to the planet. > [@clean energy wire](#): > > “But in parallel to the [nuclear phase-out](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_phase-out), we created the [Renewable Energy Act](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_e#renewable_energy_act) ([EEG](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_e#eeg)) in 2000. With this law, we wanted to prevent the [nuclear phase-out](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_phase-out) from leading to an increase in fossil power generation and a burden on the climate. In reality, much more has been achieved in the last two decades. Renewables generate much more electricity in Germany today than nuclear power plants did in 2000,” said Baake, who is now managing director of the [Climate Neutrality Foundation](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/experts/climate-neutrality-foundation). > **[Q&A: Why is Germany phasing out nuclear power - and why now?](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now)** I’m not in the position to defend what is in the cite. I’m no expert on this. But I reject out-right the position that nuclear is the only way out of the climate crisis. That’s _binary_ thinking. I think there are multiple ways, and different countries are making different choices. > [@Chronos](#): > > Unfortunately, it is all on the same planet. And therein lies the harm. All of those countries that slashed their nuclear power generation, they didn’t just cut their consumption of electricity. They replaced it all with other power plants, mostly fossil fuels, which are ruining the planet’s climate. And which also, incidentally, release more radioactive waste than the nuclear plants ever did (even including Chernobyl) Cite for all of this please. Because I’ve just provided a cite that seems to indicate that this isn’t correct. Hey, I’m still waiting on that cite for this. > [@Chronos](#): > > Once all of the remaining buildings and infrastructure in the city had been inspected for structural damage, and the damage that was found repaired, there was no reason to continue to keep people out. And a cite for well…_anything_ you’ve asserted in this thread so far. > [@Chronos](#): > > @Banquet_Bear , you want evidence that the public is freaking out? I refer you to your very own posts. You’re one of the members of the public who is freaking out. LOL. If my posts in this thread are the benchmark, I’ll take that as a concession that the public are _not_ freaking out. This is Great Debates. And I’m debating. If you can quote any post I’ve made in this thread that you could accurately characterize as “freaking out” that would be appreciated, because I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/166 "2023-09-30T00:50:06Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …evidence that they are “shutting down nuclear power plants due to falsely perceived dangers” for a start. Thats a pretty specific allegation. Try this, for one: > **[The nuclear phase-out in Germany](https://www.base.bund.de/EN/ns/nuclear-phase-out/nuclear-phase-out_node.html)** > The [nuclear disaster in Fukushima](https://www.base.bund.de/EN/ns/accidents/fukushima/fukushima.html)on 11 March 2011 was the cause for the vote in the German Bundestag - and the subsequent decision to phase out nuclear power. > > The events in Japan triggered a socio-political debate on the continued use of nuclear energy. Following the catastrophic accident in March 2011, the German government immediately initiated the so-called “nuclear moratorium”: The safety of German nuclear power plants was to be re-evaluated within a fixed period of three months. Knowledge gained from the Fukushima accident equence was used to consider various scenarios. Seems pretty explicit to me. Of course, there had been an anti-nuclear push in Germany for ages. Fukushima just gave it enough vigor to be reevaluated. Nothing _changed_ with regards to their plants. They were as safe after Fukushima as before, and since the events there were specific to the geography, it taught Germany nothing new about the plants. It was just a matter of “See? Scary!” and so the plants were closed. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > For example, New Zealand doesn’t have nuclear power. Building a nuclear power-plant would very much likely bankrupt the country. So by choosing _not_ to invest in a nuclear power plant, are we not doing our part in combatting global climate change? > > Talk me through the logic here. Building a plant and closing a plant are not symmetrical operations. My position on _new_ nuclear plants is that in the US, and probably elsewhere, it has simply become too expensive to open new plants. It’s cheaper and easier to go with solar+wind+storage+grid+etc. But closing a plant that is already safely operating imposes no additional capital costs. Shutting it down is the expensive thing, both due to the decommissioning and the fact that it has to be replaced with something else. And that something else is almost certainly emitting carbon, since almost no one is totally decarbonized. Yes, I’d have liked it if we’d all pursued nuclear with more vigor decades ago, and in that alternate reality we might have small, modular plants that would make sense in New Zealand and other smaller countries. Nothing to be done about that now. But we can not close the existing plants that we’ve spent billions on. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/167 "2023-09-30T00:55:34Z")
> [@clean energy wire](#): > > With this law, we wanted to prevent the [nuclear phase-out](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/glossary/letter_n#nuclear_phase-out) from leading to an increase in fossil power generation and a burden on the climate. And just to emphasize, this logic is totally bogus. If you build 1 GW of renewables, and close 1 GW of nuclear, you don’t get to claim a win by saying that you didn’t make things worse. You could have built the 1 GW of renewables, kept the 1 GW of nuclear operating, and closed 1 GW of coal. If your country is already fully decabonized, fine, do whatever. Germany is still burning loads of coal and doesn’t get that excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/168 "2023-09-30T01:05:38Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > For example, New Zealand doesn’t have nuclear power. Building a nuclear power-plant would very much likely bankrupt the country. So by choosing _not_ to invest in a nuclear power plant, are we not doing our part in combatting global climate change? Oh, it’s New Zealand that you’re in? That’s something of a special case, because New Zealand is one of the very few places on the planet where significant geothermal is practical. As a result, that one nation specifically is already very close to all-renewable electricity. Nuclear power probably really doesn’t make sense for you, for purely economic reasons: It’s safe, but geothermal is still cheaper. Of course, you do still have 18% of your electricity coming from fossil fuels. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/169 "2023-09-30T01:44:53Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you say this like its a bad thing. It’s _catastrophic_, unless you’re yearning for the balmy afternoons of the Carboniferous. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/170 "2023-09-30T01:46:20Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > It’s funny, but I have a hard time distinguishing between “an intense and lasting PR campaign to educate people” and “propaganda.” So educating the public is propaganda? Is educating people about trans issues _propaganda_? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/171 "2023-09-30T01:49:39Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > For example, New Zealand doesn’t have nuclear power. Building a nuclear power-plant would very much likely bankrupt the country. So by choosing _not_ to invest in a nuclear power plant, are we not doing our part in combatting global climate change? Ah, yes. New Zealand, famous for its energy-intensive industries. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/172 "2023-09-30T02:23:35Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Seems pretty explicit to me. …can you quote the “falsely perceived dangers” part of that cite? Because this: > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > It was just a matter of “See? Scary!” and so the plants were closed. Is just another assertion. This wasn’t an overnight decision. It was part of a very long national conversation that was significantly more nuanced than just “See? Scary!” The way that you _personally_ perceive it isn’t a cite. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > But closing a plant that is already safely operating imposes no additional capital costs. Shutting it down is the expensive thing, both due to the decommissioning and the fact that it has to be replaced with something else. And that something else is almost certainly emitting carbon, since almost no one is totally decarbonized. So we are pivoting from “an unequivocal loss for climate change” to “it costs a lot of money to decommission, and the alternative isn’t 100% perfect.” Gotcha. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > But we can not close the existing plants that we’ve spent billions on. The thing is…you _can_. And they _have_. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > And just to emphasize, this logic is totally bogus. No it isn’t. Not when you include the _relevant context_ that you snipped from that quote. > [@Chronos](#): > > That’s something of a special case, because New Zealand is one of the very few places on the planet where significant geothermal is practical. We aren’t a “special case.” [Geothermal is only 22%](https://www.energyresources.org.nz/oil-and-gas-new-zealand/our-energy-mix/). You’ve still got wind, and hydropower, and solar, which are vastly underinvested in the US in comparison to the fossil fuel industry that still has over [60% of the power generating share](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3). Lets not pretend that the continued reliance on coal and nuclear in the United States isn’t in part due to well funded PR campaigns and lobbying from people with financial stakes in the matter. Its increasingly difficult for the layman to be able to tell what is “PR doublespeak” and what the scientific consensus is. And there are plenty of things being said in this thread that aren’t helping the matter at all. And I’m still waiting for those cites. > [@Babale](#): > > It’s _catastrophic_, Nah. This is America. [![](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.ebf301/files/images/lesson01/L1_Fig4_update.png) ](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.ebf301/files/images/lesson01/L1_Fig4_update.png) And this is Germany. [![](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2022-1.png?itok=A88y-dTf) ](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2022-1.png?itok=A88y-dTf) The difference between renewables here are stark. Germany still has a long way to go. But there is clearly a strategy in place. What is the plan in America? More nuclear? It’s at 8% at the moment. Just a tad-more than Germany had before it shut down its last plant. Is this the game-plan? What is, do you think the correct percentage should be? How many more nuclear power plants do you think America needs? And how do you think that investment will help global climate change? > [@Babale](#): > > So educating the public is propaganda? PR is a very specific sub-set of education. PR stands for public relations. Its defined in wiki as "the the practice of managing and disseminating information from an individual or an [organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) (such as a [business](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business), [government agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency), or a [nonprofit organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization)) to the public **in order to influence their perception**. Bolding mine. > **[Public relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations)** > > Public relations (PR) is the practice of managing and disseminating information from an individual or an organization (such as a business, government agency, or a nonprofit organization) to the public in order to influence their perception. Public relations and publicity differ in that PR is controlled internally, whereas publicity is not controlled and contributed by external parties. Public relations may include an organization or individual gaining exposure to their audiences using topics o The goal of PR isn’t to help people make informed decisions. For example Johnny Depps PR machine successfully managed to portray him as the innocent party in many peoples eyes and Amber Heard as the perpetrator when the evidence showed that the opposite was true. Because that’s how PR works. It’s selective. It cherry-picks. It paints its subject in the best possible of lights. The goal of PR is to **win** , often at **any cost**. > [@Babale](#): > > Is educating people about trans issues _propaganda_? The Prager University Foundation has plenty of educational materials regarding trans issues. And yes, I consider every single thing they’ve produced to be propaganda. It depends entirely on the context. > [@Babale](#): > > Ah, yes. New Zealand, famous for its energy-intensive industries. I mean, we aren’t _famous_ for it. We are famous for this. > **[the Original World Famous in New Zealand L&P Ad - Paeroa 1994 - New...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZcUbtNIwI0%2F)** > > here is that old L&P commercial that was on TV for years. The words are as follows:It ain't famous for its Grand Prix; well, it ain't famous for its flashy d... Lemon & Paeroa is quite simply the greatest thing our nation has ever produced and the best soft-drink in the world. Its better than Coca-Cola. Better than Pepsi. And I’m sorry to say…it’s better than Irn-Bru. And while we aren’t world-famous for our energy-intensive industries, we do have them. [https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/3345bf98e5/heavy-industry-energy-demand-update-report.pdf](https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/3345bf98e5/heavy-industry-energy-demand-update-report.pdf) But you are very much missing the point. Nuclear _isn’t_ the only solution to global climate change. There are other alternatives, and it isn’t _wrong_ for countries to look at different ways to do things. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/173 "2023-09-30T02:50:17Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > So we are pivoting from “an unequivocal loss for climate change” to “it costs a lot of money to decommission, and the alternative isn’t 100% perfect.” The alternative is continuing to burn coal. That is very far from 100% perfect. In fact it’s virtually the _worst_ possible thing for the climate. Especially since so much of that coal is that shitty lignite! Now, I think this fact is such an obvious logical consequence that it doesn’t need a cite, but since I expect you to ask for one anyway, here you are: > **[Germany lagging emissions goals despite renewables boom - think tank](https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/germany-lagging-emissions-goals-despite-renewables-boom-think-tank-2023-01-04/)** > > Germany's carbon dioxide emissions held steady last year, jeopardising its climate targets as higher use of oil and coal offset lower energy consumption and record renewables output, data from climate think tank Agora Energiewende showed on... > BERLIN, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions held steady last year, jeopardising its climate targets as higher use of oil and coal offset lower energy consumption and record renewables output, data from climate think tank Agora Energiewende showed on Wednesday. > > Germany’s 2022 energy consumption fell by 4.7% year-on-year to the lowest since its reunification, thanks to spiking energy prices, mild weather and a government appeal for citizens to save energy in light of a sudden drop in Russian gas imports. > > “However, the increased use of coal and oil nullified the reductions in emissions through energy savings,” the Berlin-based think tank said in a statement. Left unsaid is that they wouldn’t be in this mess if they hadn’t shut down their nuclear plants. By the way, we can also compare to nuclear-heavy France: > **[Inside Germany’s power struggle over nuclear energy](https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/04/27/1072287/inside-germanys-power-struggle-over-nuclear-energy/)** > > Where does nuclear power fit into climate action? > Meanwhile, in France, only 30% of electricity came from renewables. Add in nuclear, though, and low-carbon power sources made up 93% of the electricity supply. So France’s emissions for every unit of electricity were lower than Germany’s by a factor of nearly 10, at [51 grams CO2-eq/kWh](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR), largely because of its heavy reliance on nuclear power. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > This is America. … And this is Germany. You made a very serious error in your comparison which invalidates your point. I’ll let you discover what it is. It’s not difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/174 "2023-09-30T03:00:49Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > We aren’t a “special case.” [Geothermal is only 22%](https://www.energyresources.org.nz/oil-and-gas-new-zealand/our-energy-mix/). 22% of the total energy usage. That includes vehicles. It’s a much higher percentage of electrical usage. And we’ve already posted plenty of cites that the fear of nuclear power is unfounded, including quotes from the sources that you yourself are linking to. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/175 "2023-09-30T03:20:58Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > The alternative is continuing to burn coal. …that isn’t the only alternative. Again: this isn’t a binary. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > In fact it’s virtually the _worst_ possible thing for the climate. Especially since so much of that coal is that shitty lignite! More hyperbole. This isn’t helping your case. This isn’t the “worst possible thing.” There are much _worse possible things_. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Now, I think this fact is such an obvious logical consequence that it doesn’t need a cite, but since I expect you to ask for one anyway, here you are: Its amazing that on the one hand posit that this is the “worst possible thing” then provide a citation that _doesn’t_ demonstrate this is the worst possible thing. Your cite shows exactly what I’ve been saying: this is a complex issue with no simple answers. What your cite _doesn’t_ show is that nuclear is the only way forward. Which is what I thought this discussion is about. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Left unsaid is that they wouldn’t be in this mess if they hadn’t shut down their nuclear plants. Maybe it was “left unsaid” because the assertion that they “wouldn’t be in this mess if they hadn’t shut down their nuclear plants” isn’t one supported by the evidence. Because America is lagging behind Europe. > **[Why the U.S. lags behind Europe on climate change goals 'by 10 or 15 years'](https://nz.news.yahoo.com/why-the-us-lags-behind-europe-on-climate-change-goals-by-10-or-15-years-090008777.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADUfvgSyqiC0z-azuWX3uqsA1vUG3qXJnXHH7iVpV3tKBKRbuym6EACbZvceeAnvxvGVuzgJm4S-wteEn4mRYZWDZ_sEYAnGtGRcdR-Czlbt5I166TehTZ62uAN4eZ9aAOqqVav4dr7O9NJ9PtEvfhcHaNuwkofrHqC_NEeI74-e)** > > Why is the EU racing ahead of the U.S. in switching from fossil fuels to renewable energies and in reducing emissions, leading the world in its goal of being 100 percent carbon-neutral by 2050? If Germany is in a mess, then the United States of America is in an even bigger mess. Orders of magnitude bigger. > **[U.S. still off-track for climate goals as greenhouse gas emissions rise for...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-still-off-track-for-climate-goals-as-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise-for-second-straight-year-new-report-says/)** > > Preliminary data shows renewable energy surpassed coal power in 2022 for the first time in over 60 years, but researchers say it's not enough to put the U.S. on target to meet its 2030 emissions goal. > **[Why the U.S. lags behind Europe on climate change goals 'by 10 or 15 years'](https://nz.news.yahoo.com/why-the-us-lags-behind-europe-on-climate-change-goals-by-10-or-15-years-090008777.html)** > > Why is the EU racing ahead of the U.S. in switching from fossil fuels to renewable energies and in reducing emissions, leading the world in its goal of being 100 percent carbon-neutral by 2050? And America _hasn’t_ shut down their nuclear plants. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > You made a very serious error in your comparison which invalidates your point. I’ll let you discover what it is. It’s not difficult. What did you think my point was? I’d rather you stopped being cryptic and just get to the point. > [@Chronos](#): > > And we’ve already posted plenty of cites that t **he fear of nuclear power is unfounded** , Bold claim. But first, let’s address the “plenty of cites” bit. I’ve asked you for evidence for specific verifiable claims that you have made. There is no “we” in that discussion. This is a **you** thing. The claims that **you** have made that **you** haven’t backed up. If other people in this thread had made the same claims that you had made I’d be asking them to support those claims as well. But they haven’t. This isn’t about “fear.” Its about your claim that “once all of the remaining buildings and infrastructure in the city had been inspected for structural damage, and the damage that was found repaired, there was no reason to continue to keep people out.” Show me the evidence that supports this. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/176 "2023-09-30T03:35:29Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …that isn’t the only alternative. Again: this isn’t a binary. No, it really is as simple as this: if you currently operate coal plants (as Germany does), then _independently of anything else you do_, closing nuclear means keeping coal plants open. It doesn’t matter how many renewables you install. It doesn’t matter how much you increase efficiency. _You still could have closed more coal plants had you kept the nuclear running_. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > This isn’t the “worst possible thing.” There are much _worse possible things_. It’s honestly hard to imagine much worse, climate-wise. Peat, maybe? Dung? At least those are biofuels and the embedded carbon came from the atmosphere to start with. Lignite is really, really bad. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > What did you think my point was? I’d rather you stopped being cryptic and just get to the point. Fine, since you couldn’t be bothered to double-check your graphs. Your cite for the US was _all energy consumption_. Your cite for Germany was _electrical_. Those are not the same thing. Comparing like-for-like, we have the previous MIT cite: > On April 16, the day after the final nuclear plants shut down in Germany, the country recorded a carbon intensity of 476 grams of CO2 equivalent for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. And in the US, we have this, for **electrical** production: > **[Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11)** > > Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government > This equaled about 0.855 pounds of CO2 emissions per kWh. Converting units, that’s 388 grams CO2/kWh. So the US is doing quite a bit _better_ than Germany (but not nearly as good as France!). ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/177 "2023-09-30T04:03:04Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > No, it really is as simple as this: if you currently operate coal plants (as Germany does), then _independently of anything else you do_, closing nuclear means keeping coal plants open. …it really _isn’t_ as simple as this. And as the cite I provided demonstrated, that wasn’t how it happened. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > It doesn’t matter how many renewables you install. It doesn’t matter how much you increase efficiency. _You still could have closed more coal plants had you kept the nuclear running_. Or you work to replace coals with renewables and continue to close the nuclear plants down. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > It’s honestly hard to imagine much worse, climate-wise. How about allowing lobbyists to have an outsize influence on the energy market? Allowing essentially unrestrained capitalism to dictate decisions instead of what’s best for the climate? Because what happens in America is pretty close to my personal worst case scenario. Where corporate PR substitutes for informed discussion. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Converting units, that’s 388 grams CO2/kWh. So the US is doing quite a bit _better_ than Germany (but not nearly as good as France!). In 2017, while all of the plants weren’t shut down, the average in Germany was _485 grams_. In 2022 the average was 385 grams, and if you want to do a “like-for-like” comparison, then what you did here (comparing a single day with a yearly average) isn’t the way to do it. And you’ve proven my point. With or without nuclear both America and Germany are about the _same_. Nuclear isn’t the big game changer. Nuclear isn’t what fix climate change. And countries that abandon nuclear aren’t the “worst things to happen, climate-wise.” Not by any stretch of the imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/178 "2023-09-30T11:32:15Z")
Shutting down nuclear power plants due to them being “unsafe” causes people to die. If only because closing a NPP doesn’t actually free up resources to build more renewables, you can keep it open, build all the same renewables and close a coal power plant instead. We had a whole plant destroyed by a tsunami and one person died, that’s what safe looks like. It cost a lot of money and effort to keep people safe, but they were absolutely kept safe. If Germany thinks Nuclear isn’t cost effective due to the resources needed to keep people safe, that’s a reasonable take, but thinking that people are directly endangered by Nuclear, due to witnessing the results of Fukushima, that’s just foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/179 "2023-09-30T15:00:42Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Many of the posts in this thread could be read as PR for the nuclear industry. Even the _thread title_. And many other posts could be read as absolutely empty alarmism; in fact, that’s what turned me around in my own position from the beginning of the thread to the end. Many, if not most, of the posts in the thread on the side of “there WAS a nuclear distaster” simply did just come across as “NUCLEAR BAD!” with no clear reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2023, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/180 "2023-09-30T15:33:09Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The goal of PR isn’t to help people make informed decisions. For example Johnny Depps PR machine successfully managed to portray him as the innocent party in many peoples eyes and Amber Heard as the perpetrator when the evidence showed that the opposite was true. Because that’s how PR works. It’s selective. It cherry-picks. It paints its subject in the best possible of lights. > > The goal of PR is to **win** , often at **any cost**. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > Is educating people about trans issues _propaganda_? > > The Prager University Foundation has plenty of educational materials regarding trans issues. And yes, I consider every single thing they’ve produced to be propaganda. > > It depends entirely on the context. Yes, PragerU is propaganda. So is much of what The Human Rights campaign puts out. Since you like quoting definitions, here’s [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com)’s definition of Propaganda: > [@](#): > > noun > > 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. > > 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. Propaganda, like many things, is a tool. It can be used for good - for example, at this link, you can find propaganda that counters some of the right’s propaganda on trans issues at the link below: > **[Myths and Facts: Battling Disinformation About Transgender Rights](https://www.hrc.org/resources/myths-and-facts-battling-disinformation-about-transgender-rights)** > > Lawmakers across the country have recently proposed a number of bills that target the transgender community. The majority of these bills attempt to restrict transgender kids’ participation in school sports… The link deliberately spreads information (check) intended to help a group (check). It has the benefit of being _true_, and of being intended to help combat bigotry. Those are both awesome things, so I’m all for this propaganda. A page by the US DoE containing factual information about the dangers of nuclear radiation is also deliberately spread information (check) intended to help a movement (the nuclearization of America’s power grid). Like the trans page, it is intended to combat misinformation, which detractors of both trans people and nuclear power engage in constantly. Statements like “Fish from Fukushima fisheries are dangerous” or “The release of tritium into the ocean will have harmful impacts on either the people of Japan or the environment” are _every bit as false and misleading_ as statements like “children are being pressured into becoming trans” or “trans people using bathrooms of the sex they identify with are a threat”. I reject all four statements for _exactly the same reason_: the evidence does not support these claims. It’s interesting that you mention PragerU, because in your fear that every bit of factual information about radiation is actually US Propaganda you seem to have turned to the informational equivalents of PragerU when it comes to this issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796.md?page=10)