Hacker News Reader

Comment by rob74 | Hacker News Reader

> what came to my surprise is that Poland, Turkey, Scandinavian countries, Africa have literally 1 to none nuclear stations.

Also, Austria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Austria

Short timeline:

- 1972: started building its first nuclear power plant

- 1978: parliament decides to ban nuclear power for 20 years

- 1997: ban is made permanent

Note that the initial decision for the ban was even before Chernobyl (the event that greatly boosted anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe).

What's important to keep in mind is that fuel from nuclear power plants can also be used for developing nuclear weapons, so historically only states "trustworthy" to the US or the former USSR were allowed access to the technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation#Dual-Use...).

View on HN

The South African nuclear reactor was of course linked to their desire to have nuclear weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...

It's difficult to disentangle civilian power from nuclear weapons concerns. This is particularly important if you want to get a good historical understanding of the opposition to nuclear reactors.

- until the end of the cold war, many people considered the risk of nuclear war to be potentially imminent, while global warming was a comparatively distant threat. This is still a somewhat live political issue around Iran, and Israel/US security services devote a lot of effort to sabotaging the Iranian nuclear weapons industry

- until environmental campaigners won, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... was common

- American commentators really underestimate the impact of Chernobyl on European agriculture, and how long it took to dissipate

> … while global warming was a comparatively distant threat.

Ahhh young folks. Until about the 70s all the media, leading scientist and organisations were concerned about the impending ice age.

So no, people then could not be bothered by the global warming, as they were actively scared of the horrors of the coming ice age.

How times have changed.

> Until about the 70s all the media, leading scientist and organisations were concerned about the impending ice age

no, not "all" the media nor all the leading scientists.. this is simply false

Nonsense.

You actually fell for the early FUD being spread by the fossil industry?

And you're still parroting it 50 years later?

Have another pack of death sticks and kick back with nine out of ten doctors sucking back cancer.

In the 70's we were still trying to get rid of lead in paint and gasoline while being concerned about the giant hole in the ozone.

historically only states "trustworthy" to the US or the former USSR were allowed access to the technology

Your own wikipedia link explains this isn't really true - the whole idea of the NPT framework is to trade assistance with civilian nuclear technology for giving up military use. There are definitely all sorts of Realpolitik factors involved but NPT signatories could and did build nuclear power plants. Who was Austria 'trusted' by to build Zwentendorf, if you think about it.

It's easy to remember the early players in the nuclear power/weapons game, with a simple mnemonic song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw

Indeed. I wonder what are the real reasons behind these bans in German nations. Can't believe it's just for political populism, there must be something more substantial.

> Can't believe it's just for political populism, there must be something more substantial.

Can you expand on what you mean by that? Also, generalizing "German" nations like this does seem a bit odd to me. Austria has a very clear and different history with nuclear power compared to Germany where it is only recently that they vowed to get rid of nuclear. For the latter case, it very much was due to events around the Fukushima nuclear accident what contributed greatly to the decision.

Not sure about the rest, but I can definitely explain why Germany has (had) nuclear power plants and Austria doesn't: lobbying! Siemens wanted an opportunity to show off its technology, so all NPPs in West Germany were built by them. Austria didn't have such implications, so no nuclear power. Lobbying (by the strong automobile industry) is also the reason why the German autobahns still have no general speed limit and are still free to use for cars (paid by taxes of course). Austria BTW has both a speed limit and a toll for its freeways (and no domestic car manufacturers).

History has shown that German automotive industry has huge power, so things like nuclear ban, shady emission restrictions, etc. seem like just the tip of the iceberg.

Are you really insinuating that the German automotive industry is behind the nuclear ban? Why would they do that?

Keep in mind that I'm stupid in politics and economy and I did not invest meaningful time into studying them, but:

I think generally accepted nuclear power is a literal threat to the German automotive industry. MB, VW Group, BMW, and others are not ages ahead of Chinese manufacturers in EV sector like they are in case with ICE cars.

german auto companies aren't that competitive in ev field and i'm not sure they want to. Thousands of ppl are working at those and that work is related to combustion engine design, switching to ev might mean a huge blow for them. Nuclear, if done like in france/japan/korea, means cheap(er) reliable electric energy which would motivate more ppl to switch to ev's and since there are other players like tesla (more popular) or something from byd (cheaper) german auto industry can be in a tough position.

France, Japan and Korea are all countries with a big vested interest in ICE vehicles so why doesn't your reasoning apply to them?

the interest in ice vehicles is either smaller and smaller lobby from them or the countries had little natural resources and national interest was put first, but who knows

If Germany was so worried about accidents, wouldn't they have fights and serious arguments with the neighbors like France that is packed with nuclear fuel, plants, and the French character of seeking endless revolutions?

Germany intentionally did something that they knew will hurt its economy, there should be a very profound reason for taking such a hit. Who would be ok to take such a hit because of a "fear"?

My generalization about the German nations may be really inaccurate here, I just thought they all had a huge influence on each other (which affects lots of previous and future decisions).

They do - e.g. before its closure, there was a lot of German (and Swiss) opposition to the Fessenheim NPP, located just across the Rhine from Germany (the English Wikipedia article only mentions it briefly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant..., but the German one has more details, including a long list of somewhat significant incidents https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Fessenheim#Betri...)

For a lot of people in Germany it's not about the risk of an accident, but rather the cost of building and decomissioning nuclear reactors.

they are in fact against france's nuclear and are trying very hard to not include nuclear as a green source to not give it eu funding.

But there are other reasons ofc including lobying from russia and auto industry

In general, ideas spread more easily in communities that speak the same language.

Chernobyl was something very substantial in germany. People knew a radioactive cloud was coming and had to stop their kids from playing outside in that year. There are still regulations up to today, that every boar meat has to be checked for radioactive contamination and they don't disclose how much has to be thrown away (boars eat mushrooms). That doesn't create a feeling of safety, even though the real risk is probably not that high anymore.

In general, you may read up on the history of the anti nuclear movement. The idea was, officials said that nuclear is totally safe - people doubted it before that and then chernobyl was the turning point for many to not believe the government at all anymore, even though there had been big demonstration before that already.

The car industry had nothing to do with that. Rather, "populism" as you call it, or rather the strong opinion of many people living in a representative democracy somehow matters.

Also, it wasn't just opinion. There were violent clashes quite often, even with deaths. Driving the cost of it all up.

For germany it's easy: cheap gas from russia+lobby from it + auto industry

It's populism.

Germany is a country littered with voodoo "medicine" clinics, to the point that they have even been integrated in the statutory healthcare system. You take those hippie "nature above science" people and tell them about the invisible danger rays and they will found the Green party, and the rest is history.

The real reasons were many. Political nuclear was always a battlefield in Germany. Safety concerns, how long before something goes wrong. Economy, going green and gas and eventually primarily green would be cheaper than investing billions in Nuclear.

Today it's also a question of security and with what's going on I would guess Germany has no regret that they don't have these juicy targets available anymore.

It may as well be some money from fossil fuel sellers: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-funding-europe...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com