Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

viktoryf95 t1_j4b4v0k wrote

Reply to comment by petit_cochon in Germany plans to destroy this village for a coal mine. Thousands are gathering to stop it by LaminatedDenim

Shouldn’t have phased out nuclear then. Action, meet consequence.

83

BloodIsTaken t1_j4b89t2 wrote

> Shouldn’t have killed of renewables for 16 years then

FTFY. Nuclear wouldn’t have changed anything since all power plants in Germany are not safe enough to continue being operated without risking accidents.

−67

shady8x t1_j4b96es wrote

You know that nuclear plants are not a long lost technology and people can build new ones right? The shutting down of old plants could have coincided with the building of new ones...

66

Plastic_Wave t1_j4bsxiu wrote

No no, you don't understand. 3 mile island happened at the infancy of nuclear power generation when it was still poorly understood. It's not like 70 years worth of advancement in technology hasn't brought several generations of reactors with new safety standards or anything. So Lord knows we can't have nuclear power now, what if we have a repeat of Chernobyl or 3 mile island?

We have to shut it down

/s

38

BloodIsTaken t1_j4bcexx wrote

You do know that it takes years, if not over a decade to build new ones? Additionally, nuclear energy is very expensive - from the beginning of construction until operation several years go by where the NPP doesn’t generate energy, it takes a lot of resources to build.

Wind and Solar energy sources are much cheaper, easier and faster to build. They also don’t need fuel (the uranium Germany got for their NPPs largely came from Russia) and are much safer - NPPs need water for cooling, which is a problem in case of droughts as can be seen in France. They have to shut down some NPPs in winter and instead get their energy from - you guessed it - Germany.

Wind turbines have to be shut down if the wind is too strong. However, that doesn’t happen too often and - unlike NPPs, shutting down and restarting wind turbines is much easier and faster to do than with NPPs.

−32

shady8x t1_j4bdflb wrote

>You do know that it takes years, if not over a decade to build new ones?

The phase out policy was introduced in 1998. It was cancelled, but then re-introduced in 2011, which is still over a decade ago.

So like I said before, the shutting down of old plants could have coincided with the building of new ones.

40

Ilfirion t1_j4l0434 wrote

It at least seems that German energy experts agree on the following: Would the CDU followed the plan payed down by the spd/ green government - renewable mercy would have been enough to phase out coal and nuclear. But the CDU and the states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg would actually need to stop dragging their feet in that department.

1

Ocular_Username t1_j4dotg3 wrote

> You do know that it takes years, if not over a decade to build new ones?

I heard this argument in the 1990s. Then the 2000s. Then the 2010s. And now.

Weird.

5

nhomewarrior t1_j4cbk63 wrote

... If you got electricity from nuclear, then you wouldn't need as much electricity from coal you nincompoop.

Not just coal, but fucking lignite coal. There's essentially no dirtier fuel on earth.

15

Manadrache t1_j4b9u44 wrote

>all power plants in Germany are not safe enough to continue being operated without risking accidents.

Yeah and because of the risky German ones there are emergency plans if something goes wrong. Oh wait. That was Tihange in Belgium.

−21

BloodIsTaken t1_j4bckbr wrote

The operators themselves said that they couldn’t continue using the NPPs in Germany anymore because they aren’t up to safety standards anymore.

Edit:

>emergency plans if something goes wrong

Ever heard of a worst case scenario? An accident in an NPP can exceed that - and no emergency plans will work because there are no emergency plans that deal with exploding NPPs.

So why take the risk? Rather shut them down and build renewables - cheaper, faster and easier to build.

−18

ChalupaCabre t1_j4bwksw wrote

I don’t want to read all this or get in this stupid argument, but just wanted to say even the Russians are building mobile floating nuclear reactors.

It’s not an impossible task. Technology has advanced to make it much more safe, it just takes political willpower, which means support from the people.

5

BloodIsTaken t1_j4bxr9v wrote

Yeah, but it‘s a) stupidly expensive, b) takes very long to build, c) Germany got its uranium from Russia.

It‘s not a question of wether or not it‘s possible - it’s a question of wether practical - and it isn’t. It’s better to build wind and solar energy generators because they are cheaper, faster and easier to build. They don’t rely on fuel from Russia, they can be shut down in case of an emergency, they don’t risk destroying half a continent.

Building new NPPs now is not just stupid, it’s also a waste if money and resources.

−4

ChalupaCabre t1_j4bybgx wrote

Yeah much better idea to keep grinding away the earth to get a little bit of combustible coal residue out of it… taking 3 units of energy to produce 5 units of energy.

It’s simply brilliant, the pinnacle of modern caveman ingenuity. /s

9

nhomewarrior t1_j4cciid wrote

>So why take the risk? Rather shut them down and build renewables

Like fucking lignite? I don't know if you've realized this, but the sun doesn't shine in fucking Germany.

Sure, you can say "we ought to build more renewable energy plants", but that clearly is not what's actually happening. Germany has spent an incredible amount of resources trying to harness wind and sun and rivers and yet its obviously not enough... Hence the mining of lignite and destruction of the villages on top of those sources. You can see at least three giant holes in the ground in Germany from the fucking moon.

All to gather and burn the most dirty source of fuel on this planet.

1

BloodIsTaken t1_j4cfct1 wrote

> The sun doesn’t shine in fucking Germany

But you know what Germany has more than enough of? Wind. And I know that, because I live there. And no matter what idiots and fanatics like you say wind doesn’t just stop blowing over an entire country. The coast is always windy, Germany has huge areas which could be used for wind energy. But because of the goddamn CDU/CSU that can’t be done.

So fuck you, I do know which energy source can be used in Germany - and long-term, it’s not nuclear - but wind.

Edit: And funny (read: sad) how little you know about Germany. My family of 5 has enough hot water for each of us to shower every day - and the energy for heating comes from our own solar cells on the roof of the house. So I don’t know where you‘ve been in Germany, but seeing as you have no idea what you’re talking about, shut your mouth and piss off with your baseless arguments.

4

nhomewarrior t1_j4cj1q9 wrote

As per your edit, you should see how much more power you'd be getting in Arizona.

Also, wind doesn't blow all the time so are you gonna pumped-hydro or lithium-ion your way towards storage? Like, obviously the future of Germany at the moment is lignite..

−1

BloodIsTaken t1_j4cjwh9 wrote

> Also, wind doesn’t blow all the time

and that’s exactly what I already addressed in my comment: In northern Germany it’s always windy. The more south you go, the less windy it is - however every place in Germany has enough wind to make wind turbines useful and profitable.

Unlike NPPs, which need water - and some counties in Germany already have massive drought problems, so wasting even more water by having NPPs just doesn’t work!

> How much more Energy you would get in Arizona

Ah, so only the place that has the most sunlight should build solar energy generators because everyone else is missing sunlight? That logic is completely and utterly wrong. As long as a place has - on average - enough sunlight to make solar energy useful, you should use as much of it as possible.

3