this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
141 points (91.7% liked)

World News

39367 readers
2315 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, called Germany's decision to fully phase out nuclear power "illogical," noting it is the only country to have done so.

Despite the completed phase-out in 2023, there is renewed debate in Germany about reviving nuclear energy due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at COP29, Grossi described reconsidering nuclear as a "rational" choice, especially given global interest in nuclear for emissions reduction.

Germany’s phase-out, driven by environmental concerns and past nuclear disasters, has been criticized for increasing reliance on Russian gas and missing carbon reduction opportunities.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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:

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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".

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago

Theres also power production from water and also using biogas plants. Those are two technologies being perfectly capable of supplying a base power.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ValiantDust@feddit.org 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • 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.

[–] ValiantDust@feddit.org 16 points 1 month ago (15 children)

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 (15 replies)
[–] nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] remon@ani.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] remon@ani.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 6 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 9 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Propagandist propagandizes.

More news at 11

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago (6 children)

This article doesn't mention the most important part of all. Nuclear power only made up about 2% of the German energy mix. The power production lost by the loss of nuclear power plants was entirely compensated by renewable power and we also have the smallest coal consumption in about 60 years, so the shutdown had no effect on the German power grid.

The shutdown of our nuclear power plants was also planned since 2011 after the failure of Fukushima. Our government extended the running time by 1 year but it devinetively didnt had the power to just revert the shutdown.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Zacpod@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.

[–] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org 21 points 1 month ago

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This "replace with coal" bs is straight up misinformation.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago (6 children)

We didn't. We chose renewables over nuclear.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is a larger usage of fossil fuels than there otherwise would have been. A certain portion of new renewables replaced nuclear power instead of fossil fuelled plants.

So yes, Germany did prioritize removing safe, clean energy over removing dirty, dangerous energy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›