[pjc50]

.. in the context of Germany already having been swept over by one power plant failure, Chernobyl, and a second large scale one having just happened in Japan.

The risk of CO2 is high (almost a certainty) but over a long period.

The risk of nuclear is low, but if a "black swan" failure happens then it potentially wipes out agriculture in a large area for years.

(There's also the proliferation risk; is everyone OK with Iran building a lot of reactors to displace their oil usage?)

[_hypx]

Which are entirely troll arguments. Chernobyl is the worst case scenario imaginable and not possible with any Western designed reactor. Fukushima killed zero people for all practical purposes. Not to mention the lack of earthquakes in Germany. Adopting nuclear is an extremely safe solution for Germany.

[ben_w]

Not trolling, political reality.

Speaking personally, I'm fine with nuclear power near me as a part of a grid — even despite the high monetary cost — because I'm satisfied of the safety and I think supply diversity is worth paying more.

But nuclear is a boogieman, and that means the reactors are slow and expensive to build.

The geopolitical risks also mean other countries may look at your reactors as an existential threat — this is also a thing the governments need to care about no matter how sure they are that they're the goodies and everyone else is being silly when raising such concerns.

And while an earthquake was the ultimate cause of the Fukushima incident, it wasn't the proximal cause: Germany does get floods from time to time.

Of course, if I get to ignore politics then my favourite is a global power grid energised by PV — the maths says that would be great, though it would take a while to build.

[_hypx]

The political reality of Germany is still that of climate change denial. Worse, environmentalists are effectively part of that group.

Eventually, this will change. You cannot denial reality forever, and especially not of existential problems.

[ben_w]

> You cannot denial reality forever, and especially not of existential problems.

Oh yes you can.

Or at least, long enough for it to be terminal. Thinking you can't possibly fail is a common reason for failing.

The Titanic being [un]sinkable comes to mind, but it's hardly the only case of such hubris.

[_hypx]

So you're literally predicting the end of the world. Great.

[ben_w]

Not in this case I'm not — I'm saying here that "nuclear won't save it", which is different, especially as there are many other solutions.

You yourself elsewhere on this post are promoting hydrogen storage (I wish all the luck to whoever is working on that); I'm personally in favour of a global power grid; there's a bunch of fusion startups that may or may not get past the political hurdles plaguing fission even if/when they succeed at net power; genetically engineered bio-oils are also a possibility (as feedstock not just as fuel!); geothermal and tidal are also renewable but not seasonal.

But on the other hand, I am worried about non-aligned AI, about biodiversity loss, about peak phosphorus, and a whole bunch of other things.