Is the fear of nuclear really higher in Germany? Lots of places are wary of nuclear but Germany proactively shutting down all plants goes the furthest.
You might say there's a coalition. Several kinds of opposition adding up.
For example, all of the nuclear operators were caught discarding nuclear waste at a construction site some years ago, without either permission or records. The site was supposed to become a storage site, but throwing nuclear waste before it's opened, in places where construction workers will have to work later, and not keeping records? The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience.
If anyone were to seriously suggest building a new plant here, the cost overruns of Hinkley Point C would be a large problem, because another part of the public is really stingy about the public purse.
And so on. It's not all fear of nuclear accidents, it's more of a coalition.
This still sounds like an emotional response. We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear.
The only difference is that the trash from nuclear is easy to handle and store.
It seems like we implicitly still subscribe the the saying that "The solution to pollution is dilution" – we rather want to dilute our radioactive waste in the air than to put it is manageable containers or leaving it on construction sites.
I’ve heard that too. Are you sure that this comparison is taking into account radioactive waste at all, rather than just comparing direct emissions into the environment during normal operation?
it seems like these number include _everything_ also the "nuclear waste in a barrel" radiation emissions.
The insurance company that insured the building I live in sent a letter a couple of years ago, saying that after the string of water leak problems we've had, our insurance premiums would more than double. In effect judging our insurance risk by the number and cost of our past problems. I suspect you won't describe that judgment as emotional.
But when people judge a power company by its past safety record, you describe that as emotional. Why? What's the difference? What makes one judgment emotional and the other not? What does "emotional" mean?
my point is, that the "insurance premiums" we have to pay now are significantly higher because we did not employ nuclear on a larger scale 50 years ago.
to stay in analogy: you had the choice of choosing another piping system that would have decreased your insurance premiums, but didn't based on an motional response.
what we forget to factor in is the enormous tax we have to pay now and the coming years due to the decision of not employing nuclear: infrastructure to manage higher water levels. climate migration issues, energy dependency issues, you name it.
and that tax we have to pay due to an emotional response.
I don't think even a 10,000 person strong web of nuclear anti-corruption and safety organisations would be 1% as expensive as the additional costs due to buying more gas from Russia, let alone the climate impact costs.
The problem is that these bodies are set up to have a commercial incentive to minimise costs and low probability of detecting poor procedure. I'm not sure if German culture can break the natural hierarchical tendencies (don't contradict superiors, don't report bad news), but probably better chance than in the US (where you'll lose your job and health insurance, and get blacklisted and possibly sued and criminally convicted, if you become a whistle blower).
Also, that was the same type of reactors as in Chernobyl.
It kind of made sense.