You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Nuclear energy, fuel for the future or better left in the past?
I was not a big fan when germany closed their nuclear power plants. Stable piece of crust without eathquakes or tsunamis. Hard to cause a natural disaster that could harm a plant. And after shutdown, they started to discuss new coal plants... Seemed a little off to me.
I believe a few extreme events better catch the eye of the public than the consistent side effects associated with other industries. Even in regions where the risks are even smaller as you said. Maybe it is also a job-thing? Similar how they try to create jobs in the US, but more subtle. I can imagine how policy makers won't oppose a nuclear phase-out if it creates a lot of new jobs.
I assumed that a power plant and a coal plant require an equal amount of jobs. Required nuclear power less manpower per power produced?
I'm not an expert on Germany, but I don't think they have uranium deposits, so they would have to import their material. But they do have plenty of coal deposits. So even if nuclear energy would create more jobs ("IF"), switching to coal would create "German" Jobs.
Damn, that should have been obvious to me... Now things make a little more sense again. Thanks 😃