I have always wondered about the origins of the anti nuclear opinion of Germans.<p>It has Cold War origins to be sure, but what kind?<p>I suspect American intelligence has been supporting the anti nuclear movement for some time, for non-proliferation reasons - and not just in Germany. I certainly would be, if I ran the State Department.
Some good answers below already. I think the anti nuclear movement already started before Chernobyl. I believe it was one of the founding ideologies of the green parties (the danger of high CO2 emissions was not yet front of mind for a lot of people back then). So the opposition to nuclear energy kind of laid the foundation for the modern (European) green parties. But these were all young people back then (in the 70s) and a they have now become the dominant generation in politics. So just like in any other country the 50+ years old are in charge and that cohort in Germany happens to have fond memories of opposing nuclear energy.<p>And just a little side note because I've looked it up recently: EU produces about the same amount of nuclear energy as the US - and that's despite Germany shutting down all reactors. So it's not like the US or any other region has a much higher usage.
Nowadays it is mostly two things.<p>The 1st reason is waste. Germany is more densely populated than the US so you can't store it far away from humans. The solution tried before was to just store it deep underground. Turns out that might even be worse than storing it on the surface as it turned out and it has been a total disaster (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine</a>). There have been more cancer cases in this region compared to neighboring regions as well, which might be linked to it. It is now planed to retrieve the waste again and store it somewhere else. Where is currently not known afaik. The whole thing costs billions of Euros already and is going to cost even more and didn't even deliver on it's promises. So for that reason alone wanting to produce more nuclear waste when we can't even deal with what we already have is obviously unpopular.<p>The 2nd reason is cost. As shown above the storage of nuclear waste has been an expensive fail for Germany, but it doesn't end there. We don't have any nuclear reactors left, so we would need to either reactive existing ones (expensive as they haven't been maintained for continuance operations) or to build a new one. How well that works we can see in either Finland or the UK... both have huge cost overruns and aren't even on-time. I think we had enough of those projects (BER, Stuttgart21) that another one that would likely end up like this is nothing anyone wants. Building more renewables such as solar and wind together with energy storage and gas/hydrogen power plants as backup is just a lot cheaper as we don't need more base load power plants, but ones that are a lot more flexible and can be turned on/off quickly depending on solar/wind output. And any new gas power plant is planned to also work with hydrogen, which can be produced when we have too much solar/wind and then act as the storage medium. So basically a long term way to store energy that is more flexible than batteries (at least on this time and size scale).<p>In the past reasons were different, but those aren't really relevant now.<p>Another relevant note here is that Germany is heavily investing in nuclear fusion, which is probably a better use of funds. <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-fusion-germany-bets-billions-on-technology-for-energy-future/a-74522109" rel="nofollow">https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-fusion-germany-bets-billions-o...</a>
It's mostly fear after Chernobyl, fueled by environmental groups and the Green party primarily.
Once I had a discussion with a German that is a strong supporter of the green party and his argument against nuclear power was the nuclear waste and no proper was of disposing it and also building new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time.<p>Then I did a deep research and created a PDF and pointed out that there has been many advances of re-using spent-nuclear fuel and minimize the environmental impact since 1980s and also countries like China has been using a cleaver way of using a standardized model of building power plants to cut cost, etc. but he didn't want to accept it as if he was almost brainwashed.
I'm sure Russians had something to do with it too. Makes sure Germany will not develop nukes and they'll keep buying oil and gas.
Just follow the gas pipelines...
That's part of it, but if you lived through months of news about where milk is unsafe and how to wash your vegetables and how much iodine to take. You'd maybe think differently too.<p>All the "oh, but it's different now, it's really safe" implies that the scientist at the time of the Chernobyl disaster didn't give assurance that it's totally safe either.<p>I am in favor of nuclear power and think that closing the plants was a huge mistake, but it's not somehow fully irrational to opose nuclear power. Not everyone has the hubris of thinking they can evaluate the risks when being shown some data. Nor can they distinguish the difference between "the experts then said it's safe" and "the experts now say it's safe".
Sure, but meanwhile they've been using your lungs as a particulate filter for coal byproducts for decades, and these things will fuck you up even in the best case scenario.<p>Coal plants also produce radioactive material btw: <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...</a>