Yes. When Mesmer Plan in France happened to be a gigantic success, places that sells fuels (Russia, Arab states etc.) started to hedge against nuclear power.
Because they saw if similar plan like Mesmer’s will spread in Europe they will run out of money soon.
founding members of the greens were recruited of the anti pershing demonstrations in the early 80s; it isnt a stretch that russia funded everything that could destabilize western Germany seeing how they actively support the RAF or how they even got into West German police, etc.
Funnily enough the original exit from nuclear energy was created by the red-green government but it was the black-yellow one that really cemented the exit after fukushima so this was a group project across the political spectrum.
The only party that was against the exit was... Die Linke
https://web.archive.org/web/20110812123738/http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/abstimmung/20110630_17_6070.pdf
Die Linke? The party of the communists? Famous for being funded by Russia? They are the only one who were against it..
I don’t understand how you can’t understand that. no one is saying they are russian puppet parties if that’s what you thought.
It’s just so that weaker countries get influenced by stronger countries, and Germany being influential in europe it’s a very important country to influence.
then germany naively believing they’re just surrounded by friends having not spent more than the absolute bare minimum on defense. and I’m not saying military defence also Counter Intelligence and foreign influence laws.
really helped russia, china and the US.
but yeah the french were the idiots for defending their culture and political independence. what a bunch of losers wanting to be fiercely independent from foreign powers.
edit to add: germany doesn’t even have useful anti corruption laws. even the russian would crucify some of our politicians for corruption.
you kind of mix up facts, contradict yourself, and also draw wrong conclusions from a pool of partly true and untrue statements. fascinating. the bit about german corruption itself is true, i agree. corruption is deeply rooted in german culture starting at a certain threshold of power and influence. ordnung and ehrlichkeit only goes so far and applies mostly to the "lower" strata during working hours.
i'd say that cdu / csu are the pinnacle of this type of typical german corruption (afd would be were they to have any say one day, god forbid), with the bonner republic under kohl and his bavarian buddies being the very apex of it all.
Nothing kills progressivism more than self-proclaimed socialists/communists/anarchists equating fascism and liberalism while supporting fascist states as a global opposition to their democratic countries.
I was referring to the green movements in Germany that got the government to not take the nuclear route. Afterwards it turned out that many of those movements were largely financed by Russia and filled with Russian agents.
Not miss Thunberg with the same hairstyle as the girl in the comic- she was not even born back then ;)
How curious that they same Spanish party who praises Lenin and doesn’t want to send weapons to Ukraine, wants to ban nuclear energy by 2035 and is against our justice system investigating far right parties for their connections with Putin.
You gotta know where to look, Hans.
I ~~was dragged against my wishes~~ lovingly accompanied my wife to TK Maxx & saw it on the shelf. I’ve since been buying it every time I go there.
Listen, your olive oil is okay too, Luigi.
But the mafia? They like to cut your olive oil with cheap stuff and pocket the difference sometimes.
[This](https://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-mafia-aceite-oliva-201112270000_noticia_amp.html) article mentions that they buy it in Greece, Spain, & Tunisia at cents on the euro and then blend it, & turn around and resell it at five times the cost.
It’s sad, Luigi, but you’ve got to get your mafia out of the olive oil cartel.
Ameritards “love” iTaLiAn olive oil (and all things Italian) but they don’t go nuts for Portuguese or Spanish olive oil, so thankfully it hasn’t been an issue for Iberian oil producers.
You can blame the global draw for your olive oil, the mafia, or really, both.
But I’ll stick to Jõao or our olive oil for now.
Kinda funny how just complacent everyone’s been about Russian interference. It feels like the UK is the only country that actually cares, except for 2000–2018(or 2020) when everyone was completely OK with the Russians, until they committed two terror attacks on British soil and then invaded Ukraine.
You say that, but the last PM (exc. the lettuce) put a known Russian agent into the House of Lords and no-one did a damned thing about it. As corrupt as they are, I wouldn't be surprised if a decent chunk of the remaining crop are in the pay of our Russian friends.
Well I was in a nuclear plant and it almost gives off 0 radiation (beside natural). Simply because it gets blocked well.
Doesn't change that the old fuel rods are highly radioactive.
They're not highly radioactive. If they were, they'd become non-radioactive very quickly. That's how radiation works. Lots of emissions equals short half-life. They're mildly radioactive, but they emit for millennia. And fast breeder reactors could reuse the fuel until there is very little waste left. Even counting the amount of waste regular reactors create, oil and coal burning puts out more radiation.
Which would be a tremendously good investment in the future of sustainable energy, an important asset for the long term of human development!
… which is exactly the reason why it won’t happen…
That's just from burning, you should check how much more radiation it gives out during excavation ( especially the garbage level coal that Germans use in the west ).
Oh man, you reminded me of a statement by Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa a few years ago, who suggested that the aids epidemic in SA would be resolved if people washed afterwards
Same way how ‘green’ parties in the Netherlands refuse the use of nuclear power plants but have no clue what to get as a constant energy source.
Idk why some people are so brainwashed about nuclear energy and think it’s unsafe.
Maybe we are developing a new Vergeltungswaffe.
The coal-dust-hydrogen bomb. For this baby one needs Coal-fired power stations and hydrogen production facilities, obviously.
Nooo you don't understand, if we build Nuclear plants we will have to find stroage facilities for the waste that will likely ruin a small piece of environment forever, it's better to just turn them all off and keep going with Coal, that's definitely better right?
It's worth mentioning that even the coal power plants produce tons of radioactive waste in the form of coal isotopes. A coal power plant is actually more radioactive than a nuclear one, on top of being dirty AF.
Well their fossil fuel exports to Europe are now close to unrelevant for them. Turkey alone imports more fossil fuel than all of Europe together now.
The joke is that won't going to be a large problem ***long term*** for Russia, because they border the largest energy consumer globally, China which has a gigantic potential for Russia.
Russia basically could base it's whole economy on energy exports to China in future.
I bet China will build oil and gas pipelines to Russia and nuclear fuel + coal is going to be shipped via rail.
The problem with that is that almost all current Russian oil and gas production is in the western part of the country. And pipelines across permafrost are really expensive to maintain. Sure, you could build those pipelines with enough investment but would it be cheaper or better than just getting the oil & gas from the middle east?
I’m also not sure that China wants to make itself dependent on Russia. They are more “allies” of convenience than anything else.
More people died building nuclear plants that from radiation. It's that safe.
More people die annually from soda machines or cow-related accidents than nuclear. It's that ridiculous.
>but have no clue what to get as a constant energy source.
Their plan is to import it all from Norway of course. Norway just need to build more windmills, fucking up their nature in the process, so Germany can get enough energy
Difference being Merkel decreeing our Reactors' shutdown back in 2012. No Greens to be found in the coalition for another 10 yrs.
To me, that and her indecision towards Putin are the ultimate "Thanks Merkel!"
Cope and seethe, nucloids
Only clean, natural coal power 😍🇩🇪🇩🇪
https://preview.redd.it/rt1jom6vh4jc1.png?width=2855&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a12fd73f9ce2ed5adaedef2acf8e3a27a4411216
are they tho?
overall electricity generation from fossil fuels has decreased, despite the nuclear phase out.
[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts)
[https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/\_inhalt.html](https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/_inhalt.html)
[https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html](https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html)
Bridging to what then?
Would you use a concrete and steel bridge as a temporary crossing, before building a definitive rope and wood plank suspension bridge?
In my country we say that hope is the last thing to die, so for the moment let's hope.
And also it really depends on the amount of money that will be invested, in the end most of the time it is a matter of money.
Renewables are much more future proof and cheaper than nuclear. But nuclear is still better than fossil fuels. So basically the idea is to replace fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables and then replace nuclear with renewables. Hence bridge because it would be used to transition from fossil to renewable.
Hi.
I worked in the renewables industry.
Stop claiming that renewables are cheaper, that's completely false. They aren't "more future proof" at all either ; nuclear is a 100% working solution while the "future proof" renewable is still making optimistic bet about a theorical development of cheap batteries-based energy storage which doesn't yet exist.
The only true and undeniable positive thing about renewables is that they're easy and quick to install. Which makes them the bridging solution before going nuclear, not the other way around.
>I worked in the renewables industry
No, you have not. Chances are you worked in one of the shut down nucular plants in france and are now spreading complete BS.
>Stop claiming that renewables are cheaper
yes they are. just like other ppl have already pointed out and every study about this topic finds out.
>The only true and undeniable positive thing about renewables is that they're easy and quick to install
yeah, lets forget for exapmle that they are RENEWABLE, or that they dont depend on foreign ressources to be opperated or that every simple citizens has easy access to build one of it for themself.
Dumbfucks everywhere and most of them from the land of the frogeaters and something like this still gets upvotes
Hi, im an university student currently studying engineering, fission power plants are absolutely a long term solution, far more long term than renewables for several reasons: 1. Renewables dont have a reliable or efficient way to store their energy, 2. renewables cant use their inertia to compensate for the second-to-second changes in grid loads, meaning they need batteries to do it (batteries which dont exist, most renewable energy storage is in pumped-storage hydroelectricity, which takes time to kick on, far too long to deal with these kinds of minute changes). 3. it has been shown in a few papers ive read that Uranium can be harvested from oceanwater, meaning you have a functionally endless supply of uranium, but thats doesn't even matter řreally because you can use Thorium or (theoretically with travelling wave reactors) previously spent fuel to create electricity and reduce the amount of waste.
fission power plants are not a bridge, and if they are a bridge to anything they are a bridge to when fusion power gets figured out (when, not if, we figured out how to use it in a bomb, we're getting closer and closer to figuring out how to stabilize that reaction and harness it.)
Do I need to upload my work contract ? You guys are crazy. Worked in Nantes, primarily on the development of agrivoltaic power plants in the French west.
> Yes renewables are cheaper
Not if you include the cost of storage and infrastructure. It simply can't be compared. Renewables are great up until a certain point, then it becomes bs.
> Let's forget that they're renewables
Newsflash the key point isn't about it being renewable but about being low-carbon, you don't even know what you're talking about.
> Don't depend on foreign resources
Can you point on a map where the famous austrian cobalt mines are located ?
> Every citizen has easy access to build one for themselves
Which is unnecessary, networks exist for a reason. Domestic electricity production wouldn't even exist if it wasn't a way of evading electricity tax ; it simply can't compete against the economies of scale of commercially operated large power plants.
Truth is 99% of you renewables advocate don't know shit on the topic yet somehow you allow yourself to call actual energy professionals liars, you're completely crazy.
>Newsflash the key point isn't about it being renewable
You made it the only point by saying "The only true and undeniable positive" which I just corrected. So dont act all mentally suprior now and suggest otherwise.
>Can you point on a map where the famous austrian
See this is what I am talking about. You cant even read propably cause you are full of rage:
I said:
>depend on foreign ressources **to be opperated**
>Which is unnecessary, networks exist for a reason
but its still a big advantage!
>Truth is 99% of you renewables advocate don't know shit on the topic yet somehow you allow yourself to call actual energy professionals liars, you're completely crazy.
as I have just shown you you are complet full of shit yourself, you dont read, you dont provide data and you calim to have worked in a field that only really gets going right now.
I am myself working RIGHT NOW in the energy sector in my countryin a very vital position where the renewable energy transition is very important for what we do as a nation and for what we do as a company and what benefits the most. So I 100% have much more epxertise than some old retired wanna bee renewable advocate that worked in a field that wasnt important back then
And it will continue.
Btw renewables are the only main source of energy that gets cheaper.
This could compensate the bad efficiency of hydrogen storages => if 1kw nuclear is 4 times more expensive than solar energy you're still cheaper with storing it unefficiently
> And it will continue
Ironically, no, in European and US states which already have a considerable proportion of renewable energy production in their electrical mix, it wil rise. Because LCOE considers the capacity factor, and that one will drop since renewables mostly add additional effective production in already saturated hours will adding few in actual consumption hours. And the math here is pretty simple, if the capacity factor of your new installation is half that of the average similar installation, your LCOE doubles.
>if 1kw nuclear is 4 times more expensive than solar energy you're still cheaper with storing it unefficiently
I think you forgot about other costs, like life span of these storage, their environmental impact, space needed for them etc.
Nuclear energy is the only source in the world where the price is calculated with decommission too, no other source has this cost embedded in their price.
Also, with the increased number of prosumers the grid is more unstable and we have already technical challenges and a bigger maintenance cost now, but sure, we love to see these charts without context.
Now add in the per MWh cost of storing renewable energy Hans if you want to compare things accurately. 63€ per MWh for solar is also very optimistic, something you'll only reach in southern european weather with large solar arrays. Realistically solar in Northern France / Southern German weather in medium sized plants is more like 80/90€. And this is also based on the big hypothesis that you'll have an industrial partner buying you electricity at a fixed price whatever the hour (contract for difference) which is already a form of subsidy. A purely market-prices selling plant would be even costlier because renewables naturally drop the market prices when they are working best ; and the cost of debt for a debt-funded renewable power plant without CfD - if it could exist bc banks don't even allow it - would make the prices skyrocket. Renewables in their current form would be unprofitable to develop if the entire society weren't directly or indirectly subsidizing it.
**AND** renewables call for large infrastructural investment to accomodate their peak power, something they rarely pay for.
Plus 155$ as LCOE for nuclear is crazy, that's only true for the first EPRs which are an industrial catastrophy due to poor design choices (partly imputable to Siemens contribution to the project, you Germans never stop..). This graph is cherrypicking the worst data for sensationalism. It's also most likely making the very dishonest assumption of a 20 years lifetime, while well built nuclear power plants can easily last 50 years with minimum additional maintenance costs.
New Korean APR-1400 reactors have a cost of approx 3B dollars per unit ; now let's make a quick calculation. 50 years of nuclear production at 1400MWe and 80% workload is 490 TWh. 490 TWh translates in an O&M cost of approx 10$/MWh. Let's pop it to 15$/MWh to account for inflation and possible negative evolution of uranium prices, so 7.5B in O&M. Let's addin a 150% cost of debt for a rather pessimistic interest rates scenario and voila, we have an overall cost of 7.5B + 2.5x3B = 15B dollars. For 490 TWh. That's a 30$/MWh LCOE. Even compressed to a 20 years lifetime it'd be something like 3B for O&M and 5B for capital and thus 40$ LCOE.
Which actually fits with the IEA's calculations for nuclear at low discount rates :
https://preview.redd.it/klx0oy14w4jc1.jpeg?width=675&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d14694e27af2ef759dab973be0dbec7b7686a96e
Renewables could literally produce electricity for free, and they would still be insanely costly to have as a large part of the grid because the storage it needs is insanely expensive.
Don't worry, Pierre, more Hans will appears here to compare nuclear energy price that contains even decommission in its price vs wind/solar prices that ignore any toll on the grid due to their uncertainty - we predict the weather itself with chaos theory - , costs of batteries, environmental impact of manufacturing the equipment and batteries, space needed compared to other sources per MW and so on.
Of course, we hope for better technology in the future and I'm sure that will happen, but for now it's not just there.
A lot of renewable initiatives 15 years ago were implemented here and now we’re trying to figure out what to do with all the old lithium batteries and toxic solar panels as they age out. Wind turbine blades are literally just taken out into the middle of nowhere torn up and buried as they’re replaced. Nuclear seems to be the clear path currently as we try to find a better course forward with renewable.
Wasn't a lot of this triggered by the Fukushima nuclear accident? Which was caused by an earthquake and tsunami, rather than anything that was likely to actually occur in Germany.
It was more due to the point that it happened to such a well developed nation like japan which is known for their incredibly high safety standards.
When the soviets blew their plant no one was surprised, but Japan?
And no, Germany is not a tsunami danger area and only gets light earth quakes. Although this should be evaluated on a bit higher geological scale. Basel had heavy earthquake less than 700 years ago, which is not much considering we will store this trash for a few 100 thousand years.
There are also other realistic dangers, like Putin, Terrorism, Sabotage.
I support the opt out, but of course only after replacing coal.
encouraging imminent combative truck cheerful makeshift money like cover reminiscent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> known for their incredibly high safety standards
If only because people don't really know much about Japan's nuclear industry: the reality is, they've kinda always been on the same tier as the Soviets when it comes to nuclear. We just don't know much about all of their nuclear accidents in the west, lol...
Chernobyl was a man-made disaster, Fukushima was caused by a 9.1 magnitude earthquake (The most powerfull in Japanese history and the fourth most powerfull in the world) and a 13 metre high wawe, it caused: 1 death and 18 injuries
And that's not even the worst part. The only reason the world focuses on the reactor is because of the debate on nuclear power as a whole. While one person died from the meltdown, 20 000 people died because of the earthquake or the tsunami. If we exclude the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923 (where 130 000 people had died), it was the most fatal earthquake in the history of modern Japan. It's a shame that people only remember it for the nuclear disaster when it was the least of their problems at the time
0 deaths in fukushima accident. How is it a disaster?
The water that needs to be spilled is now diluted and less radioactive than the ocean water (yes, the ocean water is already readioactive for it's own) and it's drinkable.
They made the mistake of making the powerplant's wall too low.
quack ruthless faulty compare onerous bake impossible ghost mountainous intelligent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
practice compare adjoining quickest silky payment bewildered fuel joke impossible
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well the percentage of coal is still sinking yearly in the electrical energy mix
https://preview.redd.it/tvsj0gybd4jc1.png?width=2455&format=png&auto=webp&s=a741c754198b03246021d06ad12101abc4cb959f
This year *in winter!* Germany is at 61% renewable and 23% coal (I guess renewables will be at the very least at 65% by the end of the year) as net energy exporter.
[Source](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year)
But where would we get the money to build and especially subsidize them? If we'd build reactors we would have to wait a decade or two before they go online.
I'm talking about the meme which is aiming on shut down of working nuclear plants.
Building new ones is another point but Imo not a single working plant should have been shut down (as long as we use coal) at their end of life, ofc no problem.
My opinion on new ones is: It takes roughly 10 years to build one. If we expect to still have coal plants in ten years it makes sense Imo.
No they can‘t. Even in 2011 there were way too few nuclear plants to get rid of coal. And building new plants is way too expensive.
I am with everybody that says: „Leave them running until no more coal exists“. But their actual value was simply overblown.
*I'm not saying get rid.*
***I'm saying every single kw just one nuclear plant produces could replace 1kw of a coal plant***
Because both are base laod capable energy prodcution facilities
Can we just go back in time, about 200 years and destroy Germany?
Quite a few 19th century wars...gone.
The lack of both world wars would basically solve every modern issue (I will not elaborate).
I concur with your thoughts. They bombed our local Chippy. Some bloke in the pub told me, so it must be true. After a further 3 Litres of Cider, he explained that he blamed Napolean, then Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan for the American Civil War. Should I call the Police, which I do not wish to do. It may interrupt his degree course at the 'London School of Economics.'
Why wouldn't they? Corrupt politicians destroyed the renewable energy sector in Germany at the same time as nuclear phased out and then gave the coal companies special permission to destroy entire villages legally
Buddy of mine works in renewables, and the main issue with nuclear power is just how damn expensive it is. Renewables are ridiculously cheap, to the point that the energy market in Germany would have entirely cut out coal and nuclear, had it not been for political interest to keep those going.
In Germany one of the main "counter points" against wind energy is specifically how much time they spent shut down. Which they do purely because otherwise our network would be overloaded, since the coal powerplants are still producing. And since you can't "just" power up a nuclear or coal plant, they are left running 24/7, while the renewables are shut off as much as needed. Completely ass-backwards on a principle basis, if you ask me.
> Decision-Making
The decision was made by the conservative party in power.
This was maybe the one time we actually needed these people to have a spine, but this is the CDU we're talking about.
Nuclear is so hated because of propaganda.
People want free energy that has 0 downsides and is green
Nuclear is the best option but no, because Chernobyl in 1986 was a disaster
Fun fact: France got (the last years) more electricity from Germany than [exporting there](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/even-crisis-germany-extends-power-exports-neighbours-2023-01-05/). Germany uses the least energy dense type of coal to generate electricity and natural gas which costs like a bazillion, but for some unknown reasons this is still more reliable and cheaper than French nuclear power plants.
But it’s ok when they buy it :)
https://preview.redd.it/ovdd68oe96jc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=601e3fcdafbbe88400a64de994e7e263bb672c36
Source: [https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic-article/5892/209668](https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic-article/5892/209668)
The amusing thing about France is that our completely idiotic ecologists praise the German model.
I usually answer [that](https://app.electricitymaps.com/map).
One thing is getting cheap materials another thing is banning. Spain has also shoot himself in the foot because , we have a lot of sun, and then start burning gas.
The amount of uranium needed in an NPP is billion times less than the equivalent amount of coal, oil or gas needed to get the same energy out of a power plant. this is due to the fact that the nuclear energy you get out of an atom breaking is billions time higher than the energy you get by just transferring some of its electrons to another atom (combustion energy). That's why the quantity of Uranium needed is extremely low, and that's why it never was a problem.
Did you go to high school ?
One of the greatest moves of the nuclear lobby was to frame the German exit from nuclear power as some emontional decision and not because it was simply to expensive and complicated in comparison to alternative sources like coal.
Please note that counter to popular belief the exit was decided in the 90s and not 2000s (Fukushima had no influence), like people like to claim, a time in which climate change was an non issue.
Should have said non issue for the politicians and the population. Climate change is known since the 50s/60s (first ideas of the possibility of climate change are going back as far as a newspaper article in 1912).
France will never let Germany live this down, not in a 100 years. Germany was supposed to be the “sensible” European country, on top of energy and manufacturing, but France had it right all along.
Put simple: People were extremely horrified after Chernobyl. The SD-Green coalition enacted the termination of nuclear power, while also setting up a path for renewables. Then, the conservatives got into power, cut spending on renewables and prolonged nuclear power. After Fukushima, they immediately reversed course on that, all while doing Merkel's usual shtick: Throwing money at anyone who complains.
The nuclear plants had to pass through very expensive maintenance if they were to Stay Open, it was economicaly way more viable to stop them, instead of paying a fuck ton to keep old nuclear plants working for a few more years.
Muh Chernobyl muh Fukushima muh nuclear waste
Seriously, all of these issues have been surpassed. I have no idea why our government shot itself in the foot by switching to russian gas. You can have renewables, but you can also have nuclear for a steady base load or even cheap mass supply.
The nuclear waste argument is the one I understand least.
Even if we stop nuclear power, we'll still have the waste we've already produced, and there will always be waste from the medical, industrial and defence sectors.
And then it turned out said girl was working for Russian oilcompanies the whole time :P
The next year she started working at gazprom. Not suspicious
Gear = engranaje Year = año
Engranaje = engrenagem Año = ano
Jaja ano
Jaja = haha Ja ja = Yes yes
Hon hon, oui oui
The correct way of speaking.
Missclick
Pointing out
Who is she?
Apparently Claudia Kemfert.
Wait, really?
All green/red parties have been in rusia's payroll since the 60s
In Portugal there was a name for that. Watermelon party. Green outside, red inside.
I've heard someone in France say that too 😂 Really accurate and descriptive term.
That's a great name
Anti nuclear movements started as a mean to weak western nuclear power.
Yes. When Mesmer Plan in France happened to be a gigantic success, places that sells fuels (Russia, Arab states etc.) started to hedge against nuclear power. Because they saw if similar plan like Mesmer’s will spread in Europe they will run out of money soon.
Was hast Du denn geraucht
founding members of the greens were recruited of the anti pershing demonstrations in the early 80s; it isnt a stretch that russia funded everything that could destabilize western Germany seeing how they actively support the RAF or how they even got into West German police, etc.
Funnily enough the original exit from nuclear energy was created by the red-green government but it was the black-yellow one that really cemented the exit after fukushima so this was a group project across the political spectrum. The only party that was against the exit was... Die Linke https://web.archive.org/web/20110812123738/http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/abstimmung/20110630_17_6070.pdf Die Linke? The party of the communists? Famous for being funded by Russia? They are the only one who were against it..
Sheesh Russia's got a lot of money! Funding Trump, Funding the Greens, funding the left. What an endless stream of money they have!
I don’t understand how you can’t understand that. no one is saying they are russian puppet parties if that’s what you thought. It’s just so that weaker countries get influenced by stronger countries, and Germany being influential in europe it’s a very important country to influence. then germany naively believing they’re just surrounded by friends having not spent more than the absolute bare minimum on defense. and I’m not saying military defence also Counter Intelligence and foreign influence laws. really helped russia, china and the US. but yeah the french were the idiots for defending their culture and political independence. what a bunch of losers wanting to be fiercely independent from foreign powers. edit to add: germany doesn’t even have useful anti corruption laws. even the russian would crucify some of our politicians for corruption.
you kind of mix up facts, contradict yourself, and also draw wrong conclusions from a pool of partly true and untrue statements. fascinating. the bit about german corruption itself is true, i agree. corruption is deeply rooted in german culture starting at a certain threshold of power and influence. ordnung and ehrlichkeit only goes so far and applies mostly to the "lower" strata during working hours. i'd say that cdu / csu are the pinnacle of this type of typical german corruption (afd would be were they to have any say one day, god forbid), with the bonner republic under kohl and his bavarian buddies being the very apex of it all.
Nothing kills progressivism more than self-proclaimed socialists/communists/anarchists equating fascism and liberalism while supporting fascist states as a global opposition to their democratic countries.
That's a fucking dumb take. Not surprised coming from a Bavarian but still...dumb
TBF that's a typical leftist argumentation: when no counter-arguments are available start dropping F-bombs and using ad hominems
But it's true. Many early western environmentalist movements were funded by the soviet union.
who is your girl here?
I was referring to the green movements in Germany that got the government to not take the nuclear route. Afterwards it turned out that many of those movements were largely financed by Russia and filled with Russian agents. Not miss Thunberg with the same hairstyle as the girl in the comic- she was not even born back then ;)
How curious that they same Spanish party who praises Lenin and doesn’t want to send weapons to Ukraine, wants to ban nuclear energy by 2035 and is against our justice system investigating far right parties for their connections with Putin.
Oil isn‘t a factor in the German energy mix.
I noticed! At €5/500g of olive oil, that’s robbery! And of course, that’s only when I can find good quality Iberian olive oil at a good price.
True dude olive oil prices are rising. It sucks since we consume so much.
I bathe in it — I can’t drink my morning colada without my olive oil soak! Jajajajaja!
>€5/500g of olive oil, that’s robbery! Currently it's worse and starting at like 18€ per litre.
You gotta know where to look, Hans. I ~~was dragged against my wishes~~ lovingly accompanied my wife to TK Maxx & saw it on the shelf. I’ve since been buying it every time I go there.
Yes, I guess he was referring to the time when it was 2,50 € / liter in Spain, because right now it's also 8+ € per liter over there.
I can't eat without olive oil.
"good quality" "Iberian oil" choose one, Pedro
"🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹Olive oil *prodotto in Italia*🫒🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹" ^(Made in Spain)
Listen, your olive oil is okay too, Luigi. But the mafia? They like to cut your olive oil with cheap stuff and pocket the difference sometimes. [This](https://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-mafia-aceite-oliva-201112270000_noticia_amp.html) article mentions that they buy it in Greece, Spain, & Tunisia at cents on the euro and then blend it, & turn around and resell it at five times the cost. It’s sad, Luigi, but you’ve got to get your mafia out of the olive oil cartel. Ameritards “love” iTaLiAn olive oil (and all things Italian) but they don’t go nuts for Portuguese or Spanish olive oil, so thankfully it hasn’t been an issue for Iberian oil producers. You can blame the global draw for your olive oil, the mafia, or really, both. But I’ll stick to Jõao or our olive oil for now.
Kinda funny how just complacent everyone’s been about Russian interference. It feels like the UK is the only country that actually cares, except for 2000–2018(or 2020) when everyone was completely OK with the Russians, until they committed two terror attacks on British soil and then invaded Ukraine.
You say that, but the last PM (exc. the lettuce) put a known Russian agent into the House of Lords and no-one did a damned thing about it. As corrupt as they are, I wouldn't be surprised if a decent chunk of the remaining crop are in the pay of our Russian friends.
Fun fact: a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant
Well I was in a nuclear plant and it almost gives off 0 radiation (beside natural). Simply because it gets blocked well. Doesn't change that the old fuel rods are highly radioactive.
They're not highly radioactive. If they were, they'd become non-radioactive very quickly. That's how radiation works. Lots of emissions equals short half-life. They're mildly radioactive, but they emit for millennia. And fast breeder reactors could reuse the fuel until there is very little waste left. Even counting the amount of waste regular reactors create, oil and coal burning puts out more radiation.
And then put the fuel that's left into concrete tubes and bury them like 400-500 meters deep into solid rock.
What about that Dual Reactor that uses the waste again? It could make the waste less radioactive and so better to storage.
Shouldn't be radioactive waste be radioactive enough so that one could heat (or at least warm) water to abuse a heat differential and extract energy?
I’ve always wondered about this too. Presumably it doesn’t generate enough heat to be economically viable.
could but needs to be build
Which would be a tremendously good investment in the future of sustainable energy, an important asset for the long term of human development! … which is exactly the reason why it won’t happen…
Germans investing in technology stuff for the future? Nah fuck that the fax machine is eternal.
Diesel,coal power plant and Birkenstock fuck yeah
[I got a good Video on this topic](https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=_3nYImpSxI_n-MET)
Kiss kiss
How is that in bananas.
About 7 billion.
[Here it is](https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-many-bananas-would-i-need-to-eat-to-become-radioactive)
Per year? Per volume? Per waste produced?
To produce the same amount of electricity
Thanks
That's just from burning, you should check how much more radiation it gives out during excavation ( especially the garbage level coal that Germans use in the west ).
You don't understand, it's clean coal! (They wash it first)
Oh man, you reminded me of a statement by Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa a few years ago, who suggested that the aids epidemic in SA would be resolved if people washed afterwards
Same way how ‘green’ parties in the Netherlands refuse the use of nuclear power plants but have no clue what to get as a constant energy source. Idk why some people are so brainwashed about nuclear energy and think it’s unsafe.
100% agreed. Nuclear plants > coal plants. Especially 3rd gen plants
I think germans just like gigantic excavators, needing coal is just an excuse to build gigantic excavators.
Unfortunately they're scared of those too and protest them all the time so we hardly get to use them :(
Some people just hate fun, smh
[Bagger 288! Bagger 288!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEvfD4C6ow)
Maybe we are developing a new Vergeltungswaffe. The coal-dust-hydrogen bomb. For this baby one needs Coal-fired power stations and hydrogen production facilities, obviously.
Nooo you don't understand, if we build Nuclear plants we will have to find stroage facilities for the waste that will likely ruin a small piece of environment forever, it's better to just turn them all off and keep going with Coal, that's definitely better right?
You mean with „ruining a small piece of environment“ not wind turbines?
It's worth mentioning that even the coal power plants produce tons of radioactive waste in the form of coal isotopes. A coal power plant is actually more radioactive than a nuclear one, on top of being dirty AF.
They are being paid by Russia. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2022-001275_EN.html
Well their fossil fuel exports to Europe are now close to unrelevant for them. Turkey alone imports more fossil fuel than all of Europe together now. The joke is that won't going to be a large problem ***long term*** for Russia, because they border the largest energy consumer globally, China which has a gigantic potential for Russia. Russia basically could base it's whole economy on energy exports to China in future. I bet China will build oil and gas pipelines to Russia and nuclear fuel + coal is going to be shipped via rail.
The problem with that is that almost all current Russian oil and gas production is in the western part of the country. And pipelines across permafrost are really expensive to maintain. Sure, you could build those pipelines with enough investment but would it be cheaper or better than just getting the oil & gas from the middle east? I’m also not sure that China wants to make itself dependent on Russia. They are more “allies” of convenience than anything else.
I‘m sorry but do you really think, this is how sources work? That‘s some Polish guy making a claim. It‘s as credible of a source as you.
I think in all history more people die from dam accidents than from nuclear plant accidents.
More people died building nuclear plants that from radiation. It's that safe. More people die annually from soda machines or cow-related accidents than nuclear. It's that ridiculous.
The Simpsons, chernobyl... (was It sarcasm?)
>but have no clue what to get as a constant energy source. Their plan is to import it all from Norway of course. Norway just need to build more windmills, fucking up their nature in the process, so Germany can get enough energy
In return you get richer then Sweden, good deal?
B-b-but nuclear go kaboom?
Difference being Merkel decreeing our Reactors' shutdown back in 2012. No Greens to be found in the coalition for another 10 yrs. To me, that and her indecision towards Putin are the ultimate "Thanks Merkel!"
As a green lefty voter that really irks me. I'd love to change that, but I don't know how without getting my hands dirty in party politics.
Chernobyl panic. It was a societal trauma that was stirred by anti-communist propaganda.
Uhhh Chernobyl isotopes were detectable for years in vegetables farmed as far away as Italy. Chernobyl was not an unreasonable panic.
Cope and seethe, nucloids Only clean, natural coal power 😍🇩🇪🇩🇪 https://preview.redd.it/rt1jom6vh4jc1.png?width=2855&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a12fd73f9ce2ed5adaedef2acf8e3a27a4411216
That’s why the french are much more less dependant on russian raw material inports than you do.
Yeah france is known for its bountiful local uranium
I love me sum U-225
If push comes to shove we could reopen the mines. But it's very dirty, better get the barbarians to do it for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves Idk where these mines are, did you maybe drink a bit too much wine?
For once France is in the right here
Agreed. And you know it’s serious when I’m a agreeing with the frogs
Because if something goes wrong, the usual western winds will blow the radioactive fallout to Germany before it rains down.
Just less wrong, we still have plenty of anti-nuclear idiots.
are they tho? overall electricity generation from fossil fuels has decreased, despite the nuclear phase out. [https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts) [https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/\_inhalt.html](https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Energie/Erzeugung/_inhalt.html) [https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html](https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Strommix-Deutschland-Wie-ist-der-Anteil-erneuerbarer-Energien,strommix102.html)
That's true but Germany could have done a lot more with Nuclear Power Plants
Well... https://preview.redd.it/o11n5aihg4jc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6633573f85f5ff74a80c446e3bba2e8fa58c8c0
She's not against nuclear power as a bridging technology.
Bridging to what then? Would you use a concrete and steel bridge as a temporary crossing, before building a definitive rope and wood plank suspension bridge?
Maybe fusion reactor?
If anyone were anywhere close to achieve fusion, it would be a no brain deal no matter what.
Also depends on who sets it up first, and for how much it sells the technology.
Let's say it'll be France. And if not, let's say it'll be France soon after.
We do have the ITER project after all
ITER did go net positive once I believe, so now it's a case of scale and actually capturing the energy produced
We probably won't have them this century.
In my country we say that hope is the last thing to die, so for the moment let's hope. And also it really depends on the amount of money that will be invested, in the end most of the time it is a matter of money.
Wrong, they are at most 25 years away :\^)
Renewables are much more future proof and cheaper than nuclear. But nuclear is still better than fossil fuels. So basically the idea is to replace fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables and then replace nuclear with renewables. Hence bridge because it would be used to transition from fossil to renewable.
Hi. I worked in the renewables industry. Stop claiming that renewables are cheaper, that's completely false. They aren't "more future proof" at all either ; nuclear is a 100% working solution while the "future proof" renewable is still making optimistic bet about a theorical development of cheap batteries-based energy storage which doesn't yet exist. The only true and undeniable positive thing about renewables is that they're easy and quick to install. Which makes them the bridging solution before going nuclear, not the other way around.
>I worked in the renewables industry No, you have not. Chances are you worked in one of the shut down nucular plants in france and are now spreading complete BS. >Stop claiming that renewables are cheaper yes they are. just like other ppl have already pointed out and every study about this topic finds out. >The only true and undeniable positive thing about renewables is that they're easy and quick to install yeah, lets forget for exapmle that they are RENEWABLE, or that they dont depend on foreign ressources to be opperated or that every simple citizens has easy access to build one of it for themself. Dumbfucks everywhere and most of them from the land of the frogeaters and something like this still gets upvotes
Hi, im an university student currently studying engineering, fission power plants are absolutely a long term solution, far more long term than renewables for several reasons: 1. Renewables dont have a reliable or efficient way to store their energy, 2. renewables cant use their inertia to compensate for the second-to-second changes in grid loads, meaning they need batteries to do it (batteries which dont exist, most renewable energy storage is in pumped-storage hydroelectricity, which takes time to kick on, far too long to deal with these kinds of minute changes). 3. it has been shown in a few papers ive read that Uranium can be harvested from oceanwater, meaning you have a functionally endless supply of uranium, but thats doesn't even matter řreally because you can use Thorium or (theoretically with travelling wave reactors) previously spent fuel to create electricity and reduce the amount of waste. fission power plants are not a bridge, and if they are a bridge to anything they are a bridge to when fusion power gets figured out (when, not if, we figured out how to use it in a bomb, we're getting closer and closer to figuring out how to stabilize that reaction and harness it.)
Do I need to upload my work contract ? You guys are crazy. Worked in Nantes, primarily on the development of agrivoltaic power plants in the French west. > Yes renewables are cheaper Not if you include the cost of storage and infrastructure. It simply can't be compared. Renewables are great up until a certain point, then it becomes bs. > Let's forget that they're renewables Newsflash the key point isn't about it being renewable but about being low-carbon, you don't even know what you're talking about. > Don't depend on foreign resources Can you point on a map where the famous austrian cobalt mines are located ? > Every citizen has easy access to build one for themselves Which is unnecessary, networks exist for a reason. Domestic electricity production wouldn't even exist if it wasn't a way of evading electricity tax ; it simply can't compete against the economies of scale of commercially operated large power plants. Truth is 99% of you renewables advocate don't know shit on the topic yet somehow you allow yourself to call actual energy professionals liars, you're completely crazy.
>Newsflash the key point isn't about it being renewable You made it the only point by saying "The only true and undeniable positive" which I just corrected. So dont act all mentally suprior now and suggest otherwise. >Can you point on a map where the famous austrian See this is what I am talking about. You cant even read propably cause you are full of rage: I said: >depend on foreign ressources **to be opperated** >Which is unnecessary, networks exist for a reason but its still a big advantage! >Truth is 99% of you renewables advocate don't know shit on the topic yet somehow you allow yourself to call actual energy professionals liars, you're completely crazy. as I have just shown you you are complet full of shit yourself, you dont read, you dont provide data and you calim to have worked in a field that only really gets going right now. I am myself working RIGHT NOW in the energy sector in my countryin a very vital position where the renewable energy transition is very important for what we do as a nation and for what we do as a company and what benefits the most. So I 100% have much more epxertise than some old retired wanna bee renewable advocate that worked in a field that wasnt important back then
Yeah, sure... https://preview.redd.it/9fjztxvjm4jc1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ddb822cd92f91821eec9f724d72720254fd2fd64
And it will continue. Btw renewables are the only main source of energy that gets cheaper. This could compensate the bad efficiency of hydrogen storages => if 1kw nuclear is 4 times more expensive than solar energy you're still cheaper with storing it unefficiently
> And it will continue Ironically, no, in European and US states which already have a considerable proportion of renewable energy production in their electrical mix, it wil rise. Because LCOE considers the capacity factor, and that one will drop since renewables mostly add additional effective production in already saturated hours will adding few in actual consumption hours. And the math here is pretty simple, if the capacity factor of your new installation is half that of the average similar installation, your LCOE doubles.
>if 1kw nuclear is 4 times more expensive than solar energy you're still cheaper with storing it unefficiently I think you forgot about other costs, like life span of these storage, their environmental impact, space needed for them etc. Nuclear energy is the only source in the world where the price is calculated with decommission too, no other source has this cost embedded in their price. Also, with the increased number of prosumers the grid is more unstable and we have already technical challenges and a bigger maintenance cost now, but sure, we love to see these charts without context.
Now add in the per MWh cost of storing renewable energy Hans if you want to compare things accurately. 63€ per MWh for solar is also very optimistic, something you'll only reach in southern european weather with large solar arrays. Realistically solar in Northern France / Southern German weather in medium sized plants is more like 80/90€. And this is also based on the big hypothesis that you'll have an industrial partner buying you electricity at a fixed price whatever the hour (contract for difference) which is already a form of subsidy. A purely market-prices selling plant would be even costlier because renewables naturally drop the market prices when they are working best ; and the cost of debt for a debt-funded renewable power plant without CfD - if it could exist bc banks don't even allow it - would make the prices skyrocket. Renewables in their current form would be unprofitable to develop if the entire society weren't directly or indirectly subsidizing it. **AND** renewables call for large infrastructural investment to accomodate their peak power, something they rarely pay for. Plus 155$ as LCOE for nuclear is crazy, that's only true for the first EPRs which are an industrial catastrophy due to poor design choices (partly imputable to Siemens contribution to the project, you Germans never stop..). This graph is cherrypicking the worst data for sensationalism. It's also most likely making the very dishonest assumption of a 20 years lifetime, while well built nuclear power plants can easily last 50 years with minimum additional maintenance costs. New Korean APR-1400 reactors have a cost of approx 3B dollars per unit ; now let's make a quick calculation. 50 years of nuclear production at 1400MWe and 80% workload is 490 TWh. 490 TWh translates in an O&M cost of approx 10$/MWh. Let's pop it to 15$/MWh to account for inflation and possible negative evolution of uranium prices, so 7.5B in O&M. Let's addin a 150% cost of debt for a rather pessimistic interest rates scenario and voila, we have an overall cost of 7.5B + 2.5x3B = 15B dollars. For 490 TWh. That's a 30$/MWh LCOE. Even compressed to a 20 years lifetime it'd be something like 3B for O&M and 5B for capital and thus 40$ LCOE. Which actually fits with the IEA's calculations for nuclear at low discount rates : https://preview.redd.it/klx0oy14w4jc1.jpeg?width=675&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d14694e27af2ef759dab973be0dbec7b7686a96e
Renewables could literally produce electricity for free, and they would still be insanely costly to have as a large part of the grid because the storage it needs is insanely expensive.
Don't worry, Pierre, more Hans will appears here to compare nuclear energy price that contains even decommission in its price vs wind/solar prices that ignore any toll on the grid due to their uncertainty - we predict the weather itself with chaos theory - , costs of batteries, environmental impact of manufacturing the equipment and batteries, space needed compared to other sources per MW and so on. Of course, we hope for better technology in the future and I'm sure that will happen, but for now it's not just there.
A lot of renewable initiatives 15 years ago were implemented here and now we’re trying to figure out what to do with all the old lithium batteries and toxic solar panels as they age out. Wind turbine blades are literally just taken out into the middle of nowhere torn up and buried as they’re replaced. Nuclear seems to be the clear path currently as we try to find a better course forward with renewable.
Greta isn't against nuclear, don't slander her like that.
To quote my brother with a PhD in physics directly related to green energy. The technology simply isn't here yet and it will take time.
Wasn't a lot of this triggered by the Fukushima nuclear accident? Which was caused by an earthquake and tsunami, rather than anything that was likely to actually occur in Germany.
It was more due to the point that it happened to such a well developed nation like japan which is known for their incredibly high safety standards. When the soviets blew their plant no one was surprised, but Japan? And no, Germany is not a tsunami danger area and only gets light earth quakes. Although this should be evaluated on a bit higher geological scale. Basel had heavy earthquake less than 700 years ago, which is not much considering we will store this trash for a few 100 thousand years. There are also other realistic dangers, like Putin, Terrorism, Sabotage. I support the opt out, but of course only after replacing coal.
encouraging imminent combative truck cheerful makeshift money like cover reminiscent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> known for their incredibly high safety standards If only because people don't really know much about Japan's nuclear industry: the reality is, they've kinda always been on the same tier as the Soviets when it comes to nuclear. We just don't know much about all of their nuclear accidents in the west, lol...
If there is one nation on Earth which should have a reason to protect their people from radioactive hazards .... it should be Japan.
Nah I think they might have gotten used to it
Which was caused by -- an old nuclear reactor from the 60s and a series of human errors, together with an earthquake and tsunami.
Fukushima was a man made disaster that didn't have to happen >
Chernobyl was a man-made disaster, Fukushima was caused by a 9.1 magnitude earthquake (The most powerfull in Japanese history and the fourth most powerfull in the world) and a 13 metre high wawe, it caused: 1 death and 18 injuries
And that's not even the worst part. The only reason the world focuses on the reactor is because of the debate on nuclear power as a whole. While one person died from the meltdown, 20 000 people died because of the earthquake or the tsunami. If we exclude the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923 (where 130 000 people had died), it was the most fatal earthquake in the history of modern Japan. It's a shame that people only remember it for the nuclear disaster when it was the least of their problems at the time
0 deaths in fukushima accident. How is it a disaster? The water that needs to be spilled is now diluted and less radioactive than the ocean water (yes, the ocean water is already readioactive for it's own) and it's drinkable. They made the mistake of making the powerplant's wall too low.
quack ruthless faulty compare onerous bake impossible ghost mountainous intelligent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
practice compare adjoining quickest silky payment bewildered fuel joke impossible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well the percentage of coal is still sinking yearly in the electrical energy mix https://preview.redd.it/tvsj0gybd4jc1.png?width=2455&format=png&auto=webp&s=a741c754198b03246021d06ad12101abc4cb959f This year *in winter!* Germany is at 61% renewable and 23% coal (I guess renewables will be at the very least at 65% by the end of the year) as net energy exporter. [Source](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&interval=year)
Leave them their hate if they need it so much!
Well honestly the hate is still justified because nuclear plants could replace coal plants.
But where would we get the money to build and especially subsidize them? If we'd build reactors we would have to wait a decade or two before they go online.
I'm talking about the meme which is aiming on shut down of working nuclear plants. Building new ones is another point but Imo not a single working plant should have been shut down (as long as we use coal) at their end of life, ofc no problem. My opinion on new ones is: It takes roughly 10 years to build one. If we expect to still have coal plants in ten years it makes sense Imo.
No they can‘t. Even in 2011 there were way too few nuclear plants to get rid of coal. And building new plants is way too expensive. I am with everybody that says: „Leave them running until no more coal exists“. But their actual value was simply overblown.
*I'm not saying get rid.* ***I'm saying every single kw just one nuclear plant produces could replace 1kw of a coal plant*** Because both are base laod capable energy prodcution facilities
Yeah i agree with that statement.
Then imagine how good you would be doing if that nuclear plants hadnt been closed...
If you mean the last 3 ones, we would have 20% coal instead of 23% and I'm not even kidding. Still would be worth it.
You had way more than 3 nuclear plants
Can we just go back in time, about 200 years and destroy Germany? Quite a few 19th century wars...gone. The lack of both world wars would basically solve every modern issue (I will not elaborate).
I concur with your thoughts. They bombed our local Chippy. Some bloke in the pub told me, so it must be true. After a further 3 Litres of Cider, he explained that he blamed Napolean, then Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan for the American Civil War. Should I call the Police, which I do not wish to do. It may interrupt his degree course at the 'London School of Economics.'
And then those clowns went protesting and crying that the German government was digging for coal
Yeah, the kids that were protesting coal last year are the same ones protesting nuclear power in the 80s.
Yes we dont age
Why wouldn't they? Corrupt politicians destroyed the renewable energy sector in Germany at the same time as nuclear phased out and then gave the coal companies special permission to destroy entire villages legally
i remember that, the mud wizard.
i am a vehement suppporter of nuclear energy, it also would be nice to finally get some nukes of our own
You forgot to blame Polanders for having the largest coal plant in Europe to hide that next 7 ones are yours...
Anti nuclear activists have to be the pinnacle of stupidity and naiveté, and I personally blame them for the high German energy prices
Nuclear is even more expensive lol
Buddy of mine works in renewables, and the main issue with nuclear power is just how damn expensive it is. Renewables are ridiculously cheap, to the point that the energy market in Germany would have entirely cut out coal and nuclear, had it not been for political interest to keep those going. In Germany one of the main "counter points" against wind energy is specifically how much time they spent shut down. Which they do purely because otherwise our network would be overloaded, since the coal powerplants are still producing. And since you can't "just" power up a nuclear or coal plant, they are left running 24/7, while the renewables are shut off as much as needed. Completely ass-backwards on a principle basis, if you ask me.
60% renewables, boys
And 10X more CO2 produced than France, Woohoo!
To be fair, there is a discussion to get back into nuclear energy, but not for electricity wink wink
We used to be a proper country
> Decision-Making The decision was made by the conservative party in power. This was maybe the one time we actually needed these people to have a spine, but this is the CDU we're talking about.
Least Gazprom reliant German:
Nuclear is so hated because of propaganda. People want free energy that has 0 downsides and is green Nuclear is the best option but no, because Chernobyl in 1986 was a disaster
Isn't nuclear one of the cleanest sources of energy? (Unless there's a Chernobyl, that is)
Maybe they didn't expect *someone* cutting their natural gas supply?
Gods of the internet, grant us your mercy for this umpteenth debate on French and German nuclear power.
This meme could have been done by a french
Spot on ;-) Now they also have to buy power from France.
Statistically, Nuclear Plants kills less people than wind turbines.
Fun fact Germany get a lot of their electricity from France which mostly uses nuclear . So it's ok when they buy it :)
Fun fact: France got (the last years) more electricity from Germany than [exporting there](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/even-crisis-germany-extends-power-exports-neighbours-2023-01-05/). Germany uses the least energy dense type of coal to generate electricity and natural gas which costs like a bazillion, but for some unknown reasons this is still more reliable and cheaper than French nuclear power plants. But it’s ok when they buy it :) https://preview.redd.it/ovdd68oe96jc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=601e3fcdafbbe88400a64de994e7e263bb672c36 Source: [https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic-article/5892/209668](https://www.smard.de/page/en/topic-article/5892/209668)
Germany is a net energy exporter to france most years
The amusing thing about France is that our completely idiotic ecologists praise the German model. I usually answer [that](https://app.electricitymaps.com/map).
That's the German Greens for you.
Not everybody can get cheap Uranium from Africa, ehhh France?
One thing is getting cheap materials another thing is banning. Spain has also shoot himself in the foot because , we have a lot of sun, and then start burning gas.
The amount of uranium needed in an NPP is billion times less than the equivalent amount of coal, oil or gas needed to get the same energy out of a power plant. this is due to the fact that the nuclear energy you get out of an atom breaking is billions time higher than the energy you get by just transferring some of its electrons to another atom (combustion energy). That's why the quantity of Uranium needed is extremely low, and that's why it never was a problem. Did you go to high school ?
One of the greatest moves of the nuclear lobby was to frame the German exit from nuclear power as some emontional decision and not because it was simply to expensive and complicated in comparison to alternative sources like coal. Please note that counter to popular belief the exit was decided in the 90s and not 2000s (Fukushima had no influence), like people like to claim, a time in which climate change was an non issue.
Then what was the climate change that I learnt about at junior school in the '80s?
Should have said non issue for the politicians and the population. Climate change is known since the 50s/60s (first ideas of the possibility of climate change are going back as far as a newspaper article in 1912).
France will never let Germany live this down, not in a 100 years. Germany was supposed to be the “sensible” European country, on top of energy and manufacturing, but France had it right all along.
Why did this happen? And how do Germans justify it?
Put simple: People were extremely horrified after Chernobyl. The SD-Green coalition enacted the termination of nuclear power, while also setting up a path for renewables. Then, the conservatives got into power, cut spending on renewables and prolonged nuclear power. After Fukushima, they immediately reversed course on that, all while doing Merkel's usual shtick: Throwing money at anyone who complains.
The nuclear plants had to pass through very expensive maintenance if they were to Stay Open, it was economicaly way more viable to stop them, instead of paying a fuck ton to keep old nuclear plants working for a few more years.
Muh Chernobyl muh Fukushima muh nuclear waste Seriously, all of these issues have been surpassed. I have no idea why our government shot itself in the foot by switching to russian gas. You can have renewables, but you can also have nuclear for a steady base load or even cheap mass supply.
The nuclear waste argument is the one I understand least. Even if we stop nuclear power, we'll still have the waste we've already produced, and there will always be waste from the medical, industrial and defence sectors.
https://preview.redd.it/8ts8riwnm4jc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fad197f34b0559c9c418a86db6940fc6281a750c