Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> a US expat living in Germany, and boy is the anti-nuclear sentiment real here

Is it the usual talking points on both sides? Or is there a Teutonic shade to the debate that doesn't surface in e.g. America?

View on HN

German here. I can't really compare the viewpoints, but historically, the anti-nuclear movement has been an integral part of the german civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. [1] I believe there have been two key events which have influenced this:

- Chernobyl. Being in close proximity, the event had a far stronger impact than in the US: There was widespread contamination from fallout drifting over from Ukraine and consequently restrictions in day-to-day life for many germans. As with covid: You tend to value a topic differently if it directly affects your life than when it just seems to happen on TV.

- Gorleben. [2, 3] Since the late 70s there have been efforts by the government to construct a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste in the Gorleben mine - against the explicit wishes of the nearby residents. This led to a decades-long resistance movement which tied into a general progressive movement for civil rights and an embrace of green technologies.

Those events mean that nuclear in Germany is both tied stronger to personal experiences and is much more aligned with political boundaries than it is likely in the US.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germa...

[2] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomm%C3%BClllager_Gorleben (german only)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic_of_Wendland

Hi, what's the general population's stance on Belgian nuclear plants ?

I remember some big protests in the Aachen region against Tihange and Doel in 2017/18. I would say there is some concern about these plants.

I don't know much about it, but from what I know, not very positive. There are worries about the age and general state of the reactors, in particular Tihange [1]. Apparently there had been various worrying incidents in the past, which eventually led to an ECJ lawsuit of neighboring german cities against the plant's operators [2].

There is also a popular sentiment in eco/progressive circles that the german phase-out of nuclear is to an extent hypocritical - because germany will keep consuming nuclear energy through belgian and french reactors.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station

[2] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/german-city-aachen-sue-belgian-nuc...

Belgium is sun setting its nuclear plants. Here's the schedule https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/energie/sources-denergie/...:

  Doel 1 :    15 février 2025
  Doel 2 :    1er décembre 2025
  Doel 3 :    1er octobre 2022
  Doel 4 :    1er juillet 2025
  Tihange 1 :    1er octobre 2025
  Tihange 2 :    1er février 2023
  Tihange 3 :    1er septembre 2025

One of these got a 2 year extension, don't know if it's reflected in the list.

But I doubt Belgium could move a lot of nuclear energy out of the national grid considering the gas power plants needed to replace nuclear aren't built yet.

Belgium is also auctioning the building and operating of gas power plants: https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/167347/b... to replace nuclear plants. They aren't built yet but the first auction (for the building) takes place this week and the second one for operation some months later.

There might be a last chance for nuclear if somehow participants to the auctions can't prove it can be done but the government is dead set on retiring nuclear plants so it would only be a small respite for nuclear.

I am all for believing that renewables can keep on growing up but I read that our government is betting for some new tech in battery and power grid appliances to achieve 2050 objectives. Seems bold to me but I am not qualified to comment on that.

Good to know. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info!

The construction of (fairly) new nuclear power plants near the shared borders with Belgium and France is actually an argument I hear quite often.

In many debates people argue about why Germany should go ahead and quit using nuclear if the neighboring countries keep building and running new plants, also posing a huge risk to Germany in the event of a catastrophic failure (actually the risk in case of a failure is probably higher for Germany than it is for France or Belgium).

I don't think Belgium is going to build new nuclear plants any time soon. The retirement schedule is pretty tight and we may choose to keep 2 reactors running for 5 or 10 years (unlikely) but the operator (Engie) is sun setting them whatever happens and has set no money for upgrading them.

They already wrote the loss of revenues in their accounting books.

Being the front line of the Cold War, while both the US and USSR developed battle plans for where nuclear weapons would be detonated in your country during a war, probably lends shades to the debate that aren't present in other countries.

(Yes, nuclear power / nuclear weapons, but in the 70s that wasn't a clear distinction)

> both the US and USSR developed battle plans for where nuclear weapons would be detonated in your country during a war

Do we know if younger Germans are more open to nuclear power than Cold War era ones?

Anecdotally, no. Young Germans (at least, mid-late twenties into the thirties) tend to have the same sort of sentiments.

They were close enough (and downwind-enough) to experience direct effects from Chernobyl, no? Destroying contaminated produce, taking iodine pills as a precaution, that sort of thing, and, I'd guess, worries, for a time, about much worse consequences before the emergency was contained.

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/accident-management/emergen...

"To date, there is no evidence that the reactor accident has caused adverse health effects due to radiation in Germany."

Well, I heard the same statement for Belarus, the most impacted country by Chernobyl (with still-in-effect Evacuation Zone). The key? How to calculate "health effects".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#/medi...

As a result of the Chernobyl reactor accident, certain species of mushrooms and wild game are still highly contaminated with caesium-137 in some areas of Germany.

https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

Imagine them end up exported

A lot of the fallout on land in Western Europe was in Scandinavia and Austria due to the prevailing winds and the places where clouds happened to precipitate into rain.

In some regions they are still today monitoring the cesium content of grass and moss, and bringing sheep and reindeer in for the weeks before slaughter to be fed hay from other regions to ensure the meat is within acceptable dose limits.

Edit - link to map: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy-Mousseau/public...

This. That map explains why so many people people are afraid of nuclear.

In 1986 one plant had a major accident, and look at all that contamination across western and northern Europe, thousands of kilometers away. Hundreds of millions of people were affected, and the consequences are still quite real, 35 years later.

Yet, Finland is ok with operating nuclear plants, and is building a new one (still). Sweden likewise. Belarus and Ukraine were the ground zero, and the most impacted regions, yet you don't see anywhere close to the militant anti-nuclear sentiment as in Germany

And lockdowns. First lockdowns in my life. We weren't even allowed to play in the garden.

Plus parts of Germany were actually impacted by Chernobyl with measurable radiation in their food / water / livestock. Low levels to be sure, but in the context of the cold war I'm sure there's a long memory for a massive nuclear coverup by a antagonistic neighbor that pollutes your land.

Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans. Of course MAD pretty much ensured a 0% chance of nuclear war so really nothing to worry about. Nations truly worried about nuclear weapons develop them, not fight against them. Think about it.

Considering that Germany is an american vassal with significant russian influence, it's more likely political factions tied to US and Russia. US doesn't want Germany to develop nuclear energy because nuclear energy research is the same thing as a nuclear weapons research. A nuclear armed germany is pretty much an independent germany which is something no empire desires. Empire and freedom/independence/sovereignty don't mix. And russians don't want germany to develop nuclear energy because they want to sell more oil/gas to germany and gain more influence over germany/europe.

>Considering MAD existed and most nukes would have been dropped on the US and USSR, not Germany, I don't think that's the issue. We and the russians had far more to worry about than the germans.

Completely wrong. A NATO-Russia war could have been (and still could) be fought entirely in central Europe. This might include tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by short- and medium-range missiles and aircraft. This is why it was said that "In Germany, the towns are only two kilotons apart" (<https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/11/n...>).

To put another way, it's possible to realistically imagine a war in which Germany is hit with nuclear weapons but the US and Russia aren't. It's not realistic to imagine a war in which the US and Russia are hit with nukes but Germany isn't.

> might include tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by short- and medium-range missiles and aircraft

Also, people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Light_Teams

US/NATO doctrine was to use tactical nukes in the event of an invasion of West Germany. There were tactical nuclear mines, tactical nuclear bridge demolition charges, tactical nuclear artillery shells, etc. In the 50s the US reorganized around a Pentomic division [1], which was effectively highly mobile battlegroups too small to be worth nuking since the assumption was that any reasonable sized formation would get plastered.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomic

Russia will gladly sell/build nuclear plants to Germany or any other country. I can imagine that it's politically infeasible. But the capacity is there.

Maybe you missed the part in Cold War doctrine where Germany is the battlefield intended to be used up to stop the invasion before the Rhine.

It mostly revolves around storing waste (in other people's back yards), and the mess the government and companies made of it - storing it improperly in mines, and the barrels rusting after some years / leaking waste.

Unfortunately from talking to some of my (really smart) colleagues, this issue is so deeply ingrained that they don't even want to look at other options, or don't really think about that this is a long term problem vs the urgency of climate collapse...

One article that goes a bit about this - https://www.dw.com/en/germany-may-not-see-proper-nuclear-was...

Seems like the typical whataboutism regarding 1) waste and 2) Chernobyl.

Perhaps more informed people are having more nuanced conversation but I sure haven't heard it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com