God, I‘m so sick of everyone who says abandoning nuclear energy made Germany dependent on Russia. The vast majority of nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants in Germany came from Russia, so even if Germany had continued using nuclear energy it wouldn’t have changed much in terms of independence - if anything it would be worse, as we have seen how fast Germany could get independent from russian gas even during a cold (-10C or lower temperatures at times) winter.

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.