But isn't it scary that political decisions about energy are made on reactionary terms rather than engineering terms? An engineer would not have said "we have to stop nuclear power," because of accidents, they would have studied those accidents and developed methods to mitigate them. This is why airlines are safe, because of past accidents that were deeply tragic and catastrophic but often went on to stymie some shortcoming of aircraft that wasn't apparent in modelling and testing that had been done at that point. If we reacted to aircraft disasters how the German government reacted to nuclear energy disasters that didn't even happen within their own borders, we'd be back to using clipper ships to cross the Atlantic in three weeks. This is regressive thinking that hurts our species overall, not progressive thinking that leads to technological improvements and benefits for our species.

> they would have studied those accidents and developed methods to mitigate them.

So, eartchquakes and tsunamis were a new developement in japan. The engineers had never a chance to study them and develope methods to mitigate risks for nuclear plants?

If plane crashes would endanger whole countries or continents we would ban air traffic all together.

Fukushima was actually preventable. There were other reactors in the Tsunami zone that were fine because they were designed for these magnitude events. The fact that Fukushima happened as it did was because engineers with knowledge on international standards were not let into the decision making process. If anything Fukushima is an argument about the dangers of allowing energy production to be controlled by a private company that will focus on its bottom line moreso than engineering best practices (this might ring familiar to people affected by PG&E wildfires). (1). That being said, fukushima still worked as intended and no radiation leaked out.

And plane crashes can and did endanger entire countries in the past, such as 9/11 where hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afganistan civilians went on to die because of a plane crash in new york city. However, we responded to 9/11 by engineering better protocols, like installing a door lock to the pilots cabin and preventing the carrying on of certain blades. There were other times too when a plane crash threatened an entire country, such as when the soviet union shot down an airliner and caused a serious diplomatic incident as a result.

1. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.037...

I really like the way that you have phrased this here. This analogy is succinct and helpful. Thank you!

It is scary, but it's not quite what happened. The original nuclear exit was a plan over some decades and included a clear exit from coal power as well. It also included a multi billion dollar plan to accelerate renewable energy as well, one that still reaps dividends today.

Unfortunately, the Merkel government stopped these subsidies and dragged its feet regarding renewables for sixteen years. The flip-flopping stance regarding nuclear didn't help either, of course.

And now Germany has the most expensive electricity in the world.

Electricity in France is more expensive on the market. It’s just cheaper for households because of subsidies.

What about fallout from burning coal? Which is much worse than what reached Germany after Chernobyl .

> Issues with nuclear like fallout from Chernobyl still leading to contamination today in German

What you mean is that fraudulent anti-science organization use it to fear monger to get people to do what they tell them to.

The actual contamination is a literal non issue. If nobody ever talked about it and nobody ever did anything about it exactly 0 people would get hurt.

> Asse II mine have been a topic in German society for a very long time.

More fear mongering for the most part.

Had all the money they wasted on Asse II been spent on new nuclear plants, they would literally have saved 1000s of people instead.