World News
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
view the rest of the comments
Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!
If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.
I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.
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?
But what if it turns out we do need it in 10 years?
All renewable everything is cool, but that's also going to require a lot of storage for the days where it isn't so windy or sunny. I think having nuclear to cover (some of) the base load on the grid will be very helpful.
And I think, you have absolutely no idea how incredibly expensive nuclear power is.
Solar power is literally free during the day in Germany right now. Investing a few hundred million in storage is much much much cheaper and easier to scale than building a nuclear power plant that will only start producing energy in 20 years or so.
Less expensive than whatever the fuck we've been doing with our climate these last 100 years. But those aren't direct costs, so who the hell cares.
But still more expensive than renewables + storage, so what's your point?
And that refutes what argument?
The costs of climate change are costs the people and our governments have to bear; just look at the billions in damage done by the recent hurricanes.
Those costs are a subsidy to the "cheap" fossil fuels we've been using. In fact, fossil fuels receive a ton of subsidies upfront too. Nuclear can be subsidised too.
I don't have faith our governments will switch to 100% renewable, and any fossil fuel is too much fossil fuel given how far we have already gone. We need to actively start scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere, and we're going to need as much power as we can generate for that.
Nuclear is expensive because it's relatively rare. Economies of scale don't apply to it as is. If we start building, it will become cheaper. Not cheap, perhaps, but cheaper. And it's a cost worth paying. We are already paying the price for the "cheap" fossil fuels.
But you have faith they will be responsible for a nuclear power plant and won't allow any shortcuts in maintenance and keep it safe?
Technical scrubbing is way to inefficient. It is powers of magnitude more efficient to invest in plants which build up the humus layer of fields, you can store way more CO2 that way.
But if we spend the same amount of money for renewables+storage we get more power per dollar.
That's the point, we likely wouldn't have any new nuclear power plants in ten years, even if we started planning them now. The one they are building in the UK was started somewhere around 2017 I think and maybe, fingers crossed, it might be finished by 2029. Right now the estimated cost is around £46 billion, up from originally about £23 billion.
That's one plant. We need many more for any relevant effect. Not even starting on the fact that nuclear energy is very inadequate for balancing out short term differences in the grid since you can't just quickly power them up or down as needed.
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.
This was so foreseeable it hurts. Renewables simply aren't up to the task of baseload generation yet in the way that nuclear is.
I also hate discussions with people who miss my point and argue against things I never claimed.
You have a source for that?
Actually coal consumption is down to the level of the 1960s.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen/2024/oeffentliche-stromerzeugung-2023-erneuerbare-energien-decken-erstmals-grossteil-des-stromverbrauchs.html
Yes, it's down since the 1960s. If this is your level of understanding I don't expect this to go well.. 🙄
It shot up between 2020 and 2023 (4th chart here): https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
Yes other things were happening, yes other values are moving up (renewables - yay!). But with no nuclear to fall back on Coal plants had to fire up to bear the burden of pressure on other fuels.
Nuclear is clean. Coal is certainly not clean.
Edit: also - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bringing-coal-fired-power-plants-back-online-this-winter-2023-10-04/
How much of that is due to French nuclear reactors shutting down, both during summer (to not turn the rivers that cool them into fish soup) as well as all that maintenance stuff they had going on lately.
Germany is an electricity exporter.
Also: You're looking at generated power. Not coal consumption. That doesn't completely erase the bump but it's quite a bit smaller, they shut down some very old plants and replaced them with more efficient ones.
The current biggest chunk is oil, mostly used in transportation, and gas, for heating. Those will need to be electrified and replaced with what 25% of their Joule-value in electricity production, gas will stay longest because it's used for peaker plants and, once the grid is completely renewable, that will be done with synthesised gas.
Had the original plan to phase out nuclear and coal been followed we'd already be there but the CDU insisted on knee-capping renewables because the likes of RWE were asleep at the wheel and hadn't shifted their investments fast enough, electricity production in Germany suddenly wasn't an oligopoly, any more, can't have that.
You're making excuses for burning coal. I'm saying they shouldn't be burning it at all.
Why the hell did they ban nuclear before coal anyway? That was just stupid.
IIRC according to the original plan the last coal plants would've shut down before the last nuclear plants. Certainly would've been possible without 16 years of CDU government.
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.
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.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen/2024/oeffentliche-stromerzeugung-2023-erneuerbare-energien-decken-erstmals-grossteil-des-stromverbrauchs.html
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.
Is not the same as
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.