Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Manadrache t1_j4as5eb wrote

To be fair the village is "empty". The villagers have been getting money by RWE. It is their land and activists don't belong on the property from RWE.

Fair? No, but who wants trepassers on their property?

30

LaminatedDenim OP t1_j4asrwm wrote

The village is empty because RWE bought them out to be able to mine coal. The activists are protesting against the extraction and burning of coal, as well as the fact that whole villages are able to be bought out for such a purpose. I'm glad the former inhabitants got paid to relocate, but that doesn't make the entire problem go away

Of course nobody wants trespassers on their property, that's the whole point about protesting. It's non-violent civil disobedience to protest against something that's destroying the earth

29

Maelas84 t1_j4bl4b4 wrote

Then don't take the money! Why are they protesting now? They didn't their money already lost likely. Don't take their money and then you can protest...

I don't understand this..

−1

Kyrvin t1_j4bqtr9 wrote

I don't know what it's called in Germany, but in the US, it's called Eminent Domain. The government can force you to sell your property for fair market price as long as it's for the "public good".

18

Cam515278 t1_j4c7f9b wrote

We have the same. But especially in coal mining cases, the actual inhabitants are usually very happy with the deal and not the people who are protesting

12

Manadrache t1_j4ay7s9 wrote

>Of course nobody wants trespassers on their property, that's the whole point about protesting. It's non-violent civil disobedience to protest against something that's destroying the earth

I am tired of this argument actually. That's the same those people say what protestors say that are glueing themselves on streets.

There are way less dangerous ways to do so.

It's raining in this area for days now and the earth is pretty wet, still they are hiding in tunnels or/and getting themselves and police in danger.

−20

LaminatedDenim OP t1_j4ayddt wrote

What would be a better way to protest, in your eyes? One that puts less people in danger, yet still draws enough attention that it actually has a chance to change things?

22

balding-cheeto t1_j4az36v wrote

There isn't a better way, people like the one you're replying to want protesters to sit down, shut up, and never be heard from again.

25

Manadrache t1_j4aznmi wrote

That's bullshit. Just do not put other people in danger.

−9

Manadrache t1_j4azirp wrote

Do you believe these things will change anything? You believe the greed of companies will be gone?

If I glue myself on a road and someone else dies like the biker in an accident a few weeks ago because the ambulance and special trucks don't have a chance to get there, is just shitty.

If I put myself in danger and force police and healthcare workers to help me like some do now in Lützerath is is shitty. At least the healthcare workers have already enough shit to do.

Why not protest at the power plant? At the front door of those politicians that are part of the decision?

−4

BloodIsTaken t1_j4b83k4 wrote

People blocked the town because that’s the only way to stop its demolition. Protesting in front of a power plant doesn’t do anything.

Since you brought up the “climate gluers”: When they glue themselves to the street drivers should form an emergency corridor as they are in a traffic jam. Since that doesn’t happen it’s bot the gluer‘s fault if an ambulance can’t get through - and I‘m not making that up, a court judged this way. The protesters block cars, which are a cause of CO2 emissions, and as such their actions are completely validated as their goal is to reduce these emissions.

Regarding „climate gluers“ and protest at a power plant: These people already did exactly that. They blocked airports, closed pipelines and protested in front of power plants and government buildings - with no media coverage at all. But when they throw food on a painting (which is protected by glass and not actually damaged) suddenly people are outraged.

Fact is, protesting doesn’t work - you don’t get enough attention when demonstrating “the right way“ and when you do something that gets people’s attention you are told to demonstrate somewhere where you don’t bother them.

9

LowDownSkankyDude t1_j4dedb6 wrote

The disruption is the point. It's fine that you don't want to put yourself at risk for an objectively good cause. It's not like civil disobedience is compulsory. However, imo, we're lucky have people willing to risk it all to make the world better for everyone. I'm not physically able to, anymore, and it warms my heart to know there are people who are able to, go all the way. Personally, I think this should viewed as an inspiration, rather than a nuisance.

3

Manadrache t1_j4dl5rn wrote

Guess it's just different on how people look at things. I don't see here a reason to put yourself at risk. I would fight for other things, yeah. But not this one.

Putting your own life in risk, sure. You are free to do so, but certain risks will get other people in danger that didn't ask for getting into this kind of trouble. It's just selfish. How on earth can that be okay?

Greta starting her friday for future day off from school was an inspiration. She never put someone else in risk. Putting others at risk while believing you are doing something good is just a lame excuse. Others did that in the past.

1

LowDownSkankyDude t1_j4do5yw wrote

I understand what you're saying, and fully respect your position, I simply disagree.

1

elycamp11 t1_j4at28z wrote

burning coal for energy is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of climate change.

11

wave_327 t1_j4atdyv wrote

shouldn't have closed their fucking nuclear plants then

42

BloodIsTaken t1_j4b6wyn wrote

  1. Nuclear power plants in Germany are not safe enough for continued use anymore without risking operating failures - and we all know what could happen in case if an accident.

  2. Germany wouldn’t have this problem if the CDU - the ruling party for the last 16 years - hadn’t made expanding and building more renewable energy sources so difficult.

  3. The majority of uranium used in NPPs in Germany came from Russia - which is not ideal when you want to be independent from other countries.

−4

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j4bwl0g wrote

  1. is BS. The plants were closed by political fiat. In particular to bring Green party into the ruling coalition in the late 1990's. Nothing to do with their safety. In fact, Germany's nuclear power plants are perfectly safe to operate. If they were not closed, Germany would not need to operate a single coal burning power plant today. Not a single one.
  2. is also BS. Germany was fast building renewable energy infrastructure. You may not be happy with the pace, but building large infrastructure takes time. They were also shutting down nuclear reactors, to appease Greens. Further increasing today's need for bringing back previously closed coal burning plants back online.
  3. There are other sources of uranium. Once fueled, nuclear power plant operates for about 3-6 years before its fuel rods need to be replaced. Putin could decide not to sell you more uranium, but effects of that would not be felt for many years. Unlike cutting off gas shipments, effects of which are felt very fast.
13

BloodIsTaken t1_j4byb4m wrote

regarding 2) : The CDU stopped building wind parks, made their construction more difficult by creating unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles and instead funded coal mining.

The fact that you say Germany is fast in building renewables shows that you don’t know much. Germany might be faster than other countries - but that’s not a point for Germany, it’s a point against those other countries.

Regarding 3) : Yeah, there are other sources. But fact is, Germany got most from Russia, so it doesn’t matter - other suppliers would have to get their uranium to Germany. And that would create dependency on other countries and - since these countries would most likely be farther away - be more harmful to the environment. I absolutely hate it when people say that nuclear energy doesn’t create co2 emissions - that ignores the time and resources spent building an NPP, mining uranium and getting it to the power plant.

−1

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j4c1ucr wrote

In short, you don't know much about how nuclear power plants operate, and the infrastructure behind it? You were told "nuclear bad", and you run with it.

EDIT: Also, thanks for confirming the fast pace of building infrastructure centered on renewables in Germany. As I said, you folks want stuff now; no pace is fast enough for you, unless it is instant. Reality doesn't work that way.

12

BloodIsTaken t1_j4cev9p wrote

You want me to go full NuClEaR bAd? I can do that.

1: Nuclear Power plants are huge targets for military and terrorist attacks. As seen in Ukraine, Russia occupied the largest power plant in Europe and is pretty much safe there - the ukrainian military can’t attack them there as doing so would risk destroying half of europe.

And Greenpeace has shown that you don’t need an army to do that. In a campaign they announced they were going to invade an NPP in France. The police was there to stop them but couldn’t do it - they essentially locked themselves out with Greenpeace activists inside the NPP. Terrorists or countries aiming to cripple (other) countries‘ energy supply could probably do so with ease.

2: Despite all of you nuclear fanboys claiming that the nuclear waste problem is already solved, this is still a lie - and it probably will be this way for a long time.

Unlike the myth perpetuated by you fanboys you can’t just stick it in the ground. Doing so would contaminate the environment - potentially killing countless animals, plants and people when groundwater gets contaminated.

And there is no long-term storage. It would would require a cave that is guaranteed to be completely sealed off from the rest of the world for at least a millennium, if not more. That means not a single crack through which water could get through, no chance of earthquakes or landslides. And we‘ve been looking for one for decades now.

3: Nuclear Power Plants take long to build.

> you folks want stuff now, no pace is fast enough for you, unless it is instant.

I want an energy source that doesn’t take ten years to be build with a constantly extending projected finish time. I know and understand that things take time - but if humanity has less than 7 years from now until the 1.5C mark is crossed after which climate change can never be stopped and will only snowball in speed an energy source that takes this long to build is useless.

4: Nuclear energy is expensive. Building a single power plant takes tens of billions of dollars/euro to build. Compare that to wind turbines, or solar, or photovoltaic, where the cost is in the thousands. Nuclear energy is just too expensive.

5: Nuclear Power Plants need water to cool. While that in itself might not be a problem, you have to look at an environmental problem: droughts. The entire world suffers more and more from droughts - and in France this has already created problems for NPPs. During winter they can’t operate their NPPs because they can’t be cooled - so they have to get their energy somewhere else.

In the future droughts will only become more frequent - and if you can’t use the NPPs you have wasted a decade, tens of billions of dollars and countless resources in a project doomed to fail.

—

So please, tell me: Why should I support nuclear energy? It‘s completely out of place - too expensive, too risky, and takes far too long to build. In contrast to that you have wind and solar energy, which cost a millionth, can be built a hundred times as fast and with far fewer resources. The choice between these is obvious - only an idiot wouldn’t understand that

2

[deleted] t1_j4evdcl wrote

[deleted]

1

bearcat09 t1_j4fpgn4 wrote

You still need water to condense the steam used for the turbine back into water. A lot of this water/heat is expelled via cooling towers or discharged back into a cooling pond/lake.

If your plant is on a river you are usually required to have a cooling tower because there are discharge temperature requirements to keep from impacting local wildlife.

1

Manadrache t1_j4axvox wrote

Somehow Germany dislikes nuclear plants more than coal ones.

Our energy prices are already pretty high. No need to close them right now to get the prices rising more up.

Suddenly people want to go all emissions free while others country keep fucking the climate up. This may sound like an asshole move, but I still want to be able to make a living. Companies don't give a fuck about me being able to pay my bills or give a fuck about climate change. It's about greed and the poor ones will lose. Doesn't matter which way.

5