88
Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.
Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This "replace with coal" bs is straight up misinformation.
Such an attitude afflicts Australia too. We could have close to unlimited free energy, but instead choose to build more Coal since 'Nuclear Bad' and 'Nuclear too much money' (despite the same people decrying the idea of 'too much money' being applied to anything else)
Hmmmm, I don’t think nuclear makes much sense in Australia when we have an abundance of renewable resources available to us. Nuclear energy has never been known to be cheap and rapidly deployable. If we were going to go down the road of nuclear power we will have to start from the ground up given our utter lack of nuclear energy industry. This would take so much time and money. Why do that when we have sun baked deserts, are girt by sea and have every key mineral under the sun.
Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out it was a good thing, when the Greens phased out the last 3, it became a bad thing.
That's literally all this discussion is about. Anyone who's actually taken a look at the data knows that phasing it out was the right move and that there's no point in bringing it back. There's a reason the share of nuclear keeps going down in the EU. Germany is also not the only country that doesn't use nuclear anymore.
Here are the sources for anyone interested:
It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it. Nuclear is the only viable clean baseload power generation option we have. Solar and wind can't do it, coal and oil are filthy, battery storage is nowhere near where it needs to be yet.
Bro has been asleep for the past 10 years lmao
Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn't work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.
Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.
"Baseload" is still needed. Renewables are great but they are simply not there yet. There is a world between "potential" and "available".
Yeah, right now. But not in 10 years when the first npps could be ready. And you would also need storage for npps when there is a lot of wind or sun, cause you can't shut down the npps all the time or thermal stresses will cause damages to the pipes. And renewables are here now, it's the storage that needs to catch up.
Baseload is still needed now. End of.
You can't magically get npps now. End of.
Which is why it was stupid to start shutting them down! 🤣
That doesn't really matter if we are discussing how to move forward from where we are, does it?
We?
It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it.
Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out
LMAO. Completely false:
In 2000, the First Schröder cabinet, consisting of the SPD and Alliance '90/The Greens, officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. The power plants in Stade and in Obrigheim were turned off on 14 November 2003, and 11 May 2005, respectively. The plants' dismantling was scheduled to begin in 2007.
Fukushima forced the hand of the CDU afterwards.
It was a dumb idea in 2000, a dumber idea in 2011, and amongst the dumbest ideas during the war. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear people shot us all in the foot with their "what about our children in 1000 years" crap. So concentrated on the far far future were they, that they ignored what impact it would have on the near and medium term. Sure, the children in 1000 years might not run into nuclear waste, but they'll be living in a climate change wasteland. Good job!
According to a 2024 article in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, Germany could have saved hundreds of billions of euros and reduced its carbon emissions by as much as 70% by embracing nuclear energy rather than rejecting it.
Good job German Greens! Well done! 👏👏👏
They are like the right wingers: ideology over facts. I bet if the conservatives win in the next election, fuck some other parts of the country but manage to introduce nuclear again, the next green government will go about undoing nuclear, regardless of its benefits.
Ok you'll have to explain how exactly that's the German greens fault. They were not in power when the decision fell to stop relying on nuclear power. Even if they really wanted to there are no plants that are operational right now. We'd need to renovate old ones for a lot of money or build new ones for even more money.
Additionally the specialized workforce needed to operate these plants isn't available. We stopped training new people for obvious reasons and it's not like we currently have a lot of skilled people in unemployment that could be recruited on short notice.
And again, nothing of that has been implemented by the greens. This is the result of conservatives being in power.
I deeply wish that people would understand that this horse is deader than dead. There is no Frankensteinian experiment and no virus that will bring it back to even a zombie-like half-life. So would you, please, please, just stop beating the poor thing.
It doesn't matter anymore how it died, it's really time to get a new horse.
Edit: Instead of just down voting, could you explain to me:
- How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?
- Who is going to pay the billions of Euros to build new nuclear power plants? The energy companies are not interested.
- Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades' worth of nuclear waste we already have.
- How this is making us independent of Russia, our former main source of Uranium
I just fail to see any way how this could right now solve our problem.
- Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades' worth of nuclear waste we already have.
Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!
How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?
If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.
Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!
I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.
If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.
That might be true, but how is that helping us right now? That's why I said it doesn't matter how the horse died. It's dead now. There are many faster solutions, why take the one that takes longest?
load more comments
(13 replies)
why do nuclear diehards always pretend it's nuclear or fossil fuels only, like renewables are nonexistant? it smells bad faith as fuck. nobody arguing against nuclear fission power plants are arguing for fossil fuels. absolutely nobody.
FSS I hate discussions with people… You can do more than one thing. You could have concentrated on both nuclear AND renewables and stopped burning COAL - but no, instead Germany had a fucking uptick in coal power while dropping the much cleaner nuclear.
Relevant comment from this thread.
But still false, because we had a short, small uptick while switching away from russian gas. Now Germany burns less coal than ever in the last 50 years.
The point is his claims "why do nuclear diehards always pretend it’s nuclear or fossil fuels only, like renewables are nonexistant? " is compleltly bollocks in the first place. I've never seen any one pro nuclear arguing against renewables. That's the ideal combo.
And this could have been easilsy debunked by just scrolling a few comments down. Was just point out the blantent lack of good faith of the previous commenter.
why do nuclear diehards always pretend it’s nuclear or fossil fuels only, like renewables are nonexistant?
Is not the same as
pro nuclear arguing against renewables
They mostly don't argue against it (only sometimes on reddit) but they always ignore its existence and accuse everyone who is not a nuclear fanboy on wanting more CO2 emissions.
Never ever ever. Mainly because Germany is sooo bad with new tech, we don't need more juice :)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Propagandist propagandizes.
More news at 11
Because being addicted to the teat of Russian fossil fuels has worked out so well...
Russia also has one of the largest reserves of uranium in Eurasia as well, only behind Kazakhstan.
Also Germany would only trade one teat for another. Energy indepences is only possible by using renewables.
Lastly every energy corporation has said they won't touch nuclear with a twelve feet pole because it is too expensive and there is no insurance agency willing to back them up.
The nuclear horse IS dead.
Unless you're ready to fill the country with a thousand battery farms, you need some sort of steady base supply that solar and wind cannot provide. Hydroelectric is not really a big option in Germany, so that leaves you with coal, gas, and nuclear energy.
Unless you're ready to fill the country with a thousand battery farms,
Oh I am totally ready to do that. A third of these batteries will be actually farms, a third will be sitting stationary in everybodies cellars and sheds and the other half will be rolling on the streets in form of electric vehicles.
Top off your own batteries and EV with surpluses during excess production and drain them during dry situations. Most people seem to forget that EVs can work both ways.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Maybe you should read up on the topic and not just repeat baseless falsehoods.
That would be so nice...
By all means, correct me then. What power delivery system out there doesn't have a base load?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
88 points (91.5% liked)
World News
39011 readers
2803 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS