Hacker News Reader

When you put it this way, you might as well say that a major accident that takes out half of Western Europe would be neglige in comparison.

German plants are old. There's issues with a few of them. Decommissioning them seems inevitable. The question is whether building new nuclear plants, at probably about 15+ years for the first plant to start operations, is really a better option than investing in renewables?

View on HN

Again, a major accident would not take out half of Western Europe, this is fear mongering. A major accident would be severe, with a large exclusion zone and a lot of economic damage, but sill kill less than coal kill in Germany each year. And Germany was still constructing new coal power station in 2018!

I am not saying that Germany should invest in nuclear instead of renewable, but in nuclear along with renewable. And yes 15 years is a long time, but still a lot less long than 30 years (and Germany lost 10 years by being stubborn about nuclear).

And other countries that want to do a energy transition should not make the same mistakes as Germany. And political parties in France that want to close nuclear plants are environmentally severely misguided.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com