112
Germany's Emissions Dive to a 70-Year Low Amid Decline in Coal Use
(bnnbreaking.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
112 points (97.5% liked)
Green Energy
2201 readers
348 users here now
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No.
Schacht Konrad was a bad idea. Gorleben would've been a bad idea.
La Hague and Sellafield were bad ideas.
Nuclear risk aversion is democratically decided.
Nuclear energy discourages wind energy expansion, which is the better path for Germany IMO.
Hang on you are saying nuclear power has always been a bad idea? That a bit of an unusual view.
What I'm saying is it was good before wind and solar and is still cost effective to keep ruining once built. But I dont think new nuclear power plants should be built unless it's for national security.
The combined risk of posthumanity pollution and catastrophic failures makes it a no-go for a risk averse society. Germany is spatially a comparably small country with high population density, there is not really a place where you easily can say no one lives here for the next thousands of years.
La Hague and Sellafield are or were places of necessary production chain segments with high pollution danger and history.
Zaporishja shows how dangerous centralised power production can be.
PV and wind energy were politically advocated for in Germany (California as well btw) before they were cheap and mass produced and efficient, even or especially against nuclear energy.
Austria actually is somewhat of a success story with a similar history.
It was always a bad idea and humanity should never have touched uranium at all. Would have saved us so much.
100% this, but idiots gonna complain because big oil pays propaganda to push nuclear wich needs years to build and is unreliable.