Which has an interesting outcome: The irrational response to Fukushima (in particular, the shift from nuclear to coal generation) will undoubtedly kill several orders of magnitude more people than the actual Fukushima disaster did.
Sometimes it's hard not to get cynical and bitter.
> Germany responded to Fukushima by shutting down their nuclear power plants
Germany did not do that. Some of the oldest were shutdown. Basically Germany went back to the original plan from 2000, which was made together with the industry. The last nuclear reactor will be shut down around 2022.
> In fact, they've embarked on a program of building new coal plants across Germany, which is madness by basically any metric you care to use.
Germany did not do that. Various coal power plants were planned long ago. Also many old were and are taken offline. That Germany is using coal is not actually madness. Germany has basically only one fossil fuel in larger quantities in the country: coal.
> Which has an interesting outcome: The irrational response to Fukushima (in particular, the shift from nuclear to coal generation) will undoubtedly kill several orders of magnitude more people than the actual Fukushima disaster did.
Germany is on a long missions towards renewable energy. Nuclear energy is not a part of the plan. Nuclear will be replaced early, since it is a very costly energy which needs decades to be replaced. So Germany wanted to stop investing into it very early.
There is no shift to coal. This year for example coal use is going down. What you think is a shift to coal, is just a temporary effect in a long-term plan.
> Sometimes it's hard not to get cynical and bitter.
If you would be better informed about German plans, you would not need to be cynical and bitter.
Item 2: Germany is building a raft of new coal plants; something like 30 are in various stages of planning and building. According to Die Welt, power generation from brown coal (the dirtiest form) is climbing, at the highest level since 1990, and projected to increase further. Overall fossil fuel use for power generation is staying constant. If it wasn't for the decline of nuclear power in Germany, fossil fuel use could have declined. And according to Germany's energy regulator, coal fired plants will be essential to replace the closing nuclear plants.
> There is no shift to coal.
Yes, there is. As you go on to admit, even if you label it a "temporary effect in a long-term plan". (But given that the coal plants now being built are projected to be operating for 40 years, it's not what I'd call temporary.)
And that shift will result in a net increase in deaths. You seem very defensive, but you haven't actually disputed any of the underlying facts.
Those were to close anyway in the very near future. Germany did not greatly accelerate the plan.
> Item 2: Germany is building a raft of new coal plants; something like 30 are in various stages of planning and building.
It does not. 'Planning' is not building. Germany currently discusses the closing of 50 fossil fuel plants.
> According to Die Welt, power generation from brown coal (the dirtiest form) is climbing, at the highest level since 1990, and projected to increase further.
It is not. This year coal use is going down.
> Overall fossil fuel use for power generation is staying constant.
Only for a few years.
> If it wasn't for the decline of nuclear power in Germany, fossil fuel use could have declined. And according to Germany's energy regulator, coal fired plants will be essential to replace the closing nuclear plants.
Fossil fuel plants will be greatly reduced during the next decades.
Already the industry is closing them faster than we want:
http://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/news/rueckzug-aus-der-kohle-r...
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/rwe-strom-energieriese...
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article119000950/RWE-und-E-on-...
> Yes, there is. As you go on to admit, even if you label it a "temporary effect in a long-term plan". (But given that the coal plants now being built are projected to be operating for 40 years, it's not what I'd call temporary.)
We have a lot of old ones to close.
> And that shift will result in a net increase in deaths. You seem very defensive, but you haven't actually disputed any of the underlying facts.
Your so-called 'facts' are mostly wrong. I told you for example that coal use is going down this year. That's a fact.
You are including the coal used to build solar cells right?
No, of course you aren't. Germany is just shipping their coal emissions to China, so that on paper they look good, but are actually making things worse.
Greenwashing at its finest: Country wide and government supported.
You know that renewable energy is more than solar?
> Germany is just shipping their coal emissions to China
We were not shipping emissions to China. Germany has build a lot of solar cell plants. Many got financial problems when China entered the market.
> Greenwashing at its finest: Country wide and government supported.
Personally I like our greenwashing more than your greenwashing.
I'd much rather see wind, tidal or geothermal anyway. In the scheme of things they have lower regulatory hurdles and can even be tinkered with in your back yard for the former. One of the houses I walk past on my way home has a wind turbine made out of a washing machine motor and PVC pipe, it's extremely cool to watch.
What would happen if the Chinese took the same attitude with nuclear power?
I'd bet it would be pretty calamitous, as you imply. I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea.
However, would it kill 300,000 people every year? I'm not so sure.
I have different number: 1,049 from [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Accidents_and_de...
According to this article, coal power in China killed 300,000 people last year, which itself is way more than were displaced (not killed) by Fukushima. Even US coal power, which is much safer than Chinese coal power, is 160x more deadly per joule than nuclear, and it appears that's not counting climate change effects.
I don't mean to suggest that nuclear power is without risk -- of course it's risky business. But we need to compare the risk to the alternatives.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...