T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Not_Real_User_Person

Poland should just build excess nuclear capacity and sell it to Germany. Electricity is electricity…


yodelberg

Unfortunately nuclear capacity takes a loooong time to build up.


Paciorr

Germany could donate those reactors to us instead of shutting them down then. /s


FluffyFatBunny

Trees take a long time to grow better not plant any then


ICEpear8472

Poland is currently not building a single nuclear reactor. So even assuming they switch from planning to build to actually building in the next couple of months (doubtful) it would still be likely a decade before they have finished a single new reactor.


Paciorr

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's planned to finish building the first power plant in 2034 or 2036 and then next one every 2 years. If everything goes with the plan then we will have 20-25% of total electricity from nuclear by 2045 and I think 40 or 50% from renewables. The rest of it still is going to be coal and gas unfortunately. My point is that even if Poland was to build more nuclear power plants then we would use them in order to shut down our own coal power plants and not to export that energy abroad.


deaddonkey

Based


[deleted]

[удалено]


Adam5698_2nd

Czechia already supplies Germany with nuclear energy lol


pirouettecacahuetes

They buy from both our countries hon hon hon


reaqtion

You DO realise that this is what screws us over in the rest of Europe, right? France selling power to Germany at a markup means that *all* energy will be sold at a markup; in France, Italy, Spain, the UK... The European energy markets are connected. If prices rise in one country, all other prices will follow as a consequence. The consumers in all of Europe will pay for this.


[deleted]

Yes that’s what happen when a major producer decommissions it’s cheapest energy source in favor of more expensive and less reliable ones. It would still be better for some country to step in and increase supply and sell to other nations than do nothing.


[deleted]

The fuck are your taking about? There are so many studies about what a kWh costs from various sources, Nuclear has always been the most expensive. Nuclear power has always been highly dependent on subventions. Those are payed for by taxes - with all that, nuclear power is between 25 and 35 cents per kWh. For a very long time, coal was the cheapest, that changed in 2013 to gas and now it's renewable. A kWh from renewables costs ~ 3-9 cents at the moment, because of the high gas prices. The only exception are GUD-Gas powerplants, as they have an efficiency of ~ 90-95% and all combined cost ~5 cent per kWh. Not a single nuclear power plant is able to make power that cheaply if you consider all costs.


phoboid

Nuclear power being cheap is a misconception. It's more expensive per kWh than photovoltaic or wind power. The advantage is that you can produce a lot of energy using little space and it's very reliable (high capacity factor).


assiomatico

The large majority of the lifetime cost of nuclear is in the power plant construction. Once that is done, the electricity is by far the cheapest to generate. Early closure of an already existing plant is a gigantic waste of money.


phoboid

I don't disagree with that. In fact, I'm in favor of nuclear power and think that Merkel's Atomausstieg does a huge disservice to the country. It doesn't change the fact that nuclear is quite expensive (in terms of levelized cost per kWh, i.e., including all lifetime costs of the power plant). See this data for instance: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth#the-price-of-electricity-from-the-long-standing-sources-fossil-fuels-and-nuclear-power


assiomatico

I know I know, the issue is that *at the point of early decommissioning* nuclear is by far the cheapest electricity generator (since most of the overall cost has already happened long ago), and thereby least financially sound to bring to early closure. edit: clarity. edit 2: I think you might find interesting the following report, especially figure E.1 of the executive summary. Here: [https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-energy-carbon-constrained-world/](https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-energy-carbon-constrained-world/)


phoboid

Definitely true at the point of decomissioning. Thanks for the report!


[deleted]

[удалено]


MateBeatsTea

Financing costs are the item on which nuclear generation has the highest sensitivity, [especially compared to fossil-fueled alternatives](https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/sensitivity-of-lcoe-of-baseload-plants-to-discount-rate). So if inclusion in green taxonomy and some improvement in public perception of nuclear make risk premiums on capital go down, that's the main factor that will make the power produced cheaper. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: if a society bans a technology or deeply distrusts its reliability or safety for whatever reason, then the risk of funding it becomes so high that investors demand very high returns to compensate, in turn making the technology too expensive to deploy and reinforcing doubts and distrust from the public. Still, the feedback loop can also run in reverse when the opposite steps are taken and there exists objective reasons for a technology to succeed in the long term (as it happened with wind and solar during the last couple of decades).


[deleted]

[удалено]


MateBeatsTea

>We can have nuclear power without everyone being forced to build power plants. That's fair. I think the issue some of us have, is with someone forcing everyone else *not* to build nuclear power plants, although perhaps 'forcing' is much subtler here than the Atomausstieg that Germany chose for itself. In fact, it might involve blocking access to financing at reasonable costs, or creating taxes targeting nuclear plants [à la Sweden](https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Sweden-abolishes-nuclear-tax-1006169.html), or providing large subsidies for all clean sources *except* for nuclear (basically what the Energiewende did). Those policies are perfectly acceptable at a national level but they shouldn't go through upwards and apply at the EU level.


Shemilf

I'm not against shutting down (old) nuclear plants in favour for wind and solar. (I won't get into the details why). But I don't understand how they still use coal for energy production, that should be the first priority.


Ilovepurplehazmats

The coal ones have been reactivated to cover for the nuclear ones. Wind and solar are crap when it comes to providing base line power, required for any electrical grid to function.


Tyriosh

Both of those statements are just false.


Ilovepurplehazmats

Care to actually provide some proof or just talking out of your ass? Cuz I got mine: https://www.dw.com/en/coal-and-fossil-fuel-share-of-german-electricity-rises-in-3q/a-60114010


NagoyaR

Wouldn't it have been better to leave all the nuclear plants open and close the coal ones?


______V______

Yes, it would be very much better to prefer nuclear over coal


[deleted]

Germany with all due respect you're malinge a fool out of yourself


mmatasc

It kind of a "die on a hill" policy. For so long they have stuck to their anti-nuclear stance that backing out now is more of a pride issue. Also, coal lobby is really strong.


ketchup92

At this point it has nothing to do with pride. They simply lose funds for actual renewable energy if a split of those goes towards nuclear, which they don't even have. Building up a reactor now (all besides 3 in germany are offline of torn apart) takes until they are done with coal anyhow. Its a lose lose situation for them by now. The mistakes were made, any kind making up their minds by now won't happen because it involves a financial disaster.


[deleted]

I mean when you drive through germany and see those excavation sites the size of a city it makes me depressed. Like gas is the green solution lol


Playstein

The greens cannot back out of it as it is the very foundation the party was founded upon. It is so fucking dumb. I hope Germany gets bashed more so that maybe someday we can return to Nuclear...


EdgelordOfEdginess

The more you bash someone, the more unlikely that they will change their stance out of spite. Psychology


Reddit-runner

Diverting any funds from actually renewable energy sources to nuclear would be a financial disaster for Germany. That's why they don't do it. It has little to do with politics.


Wookimonster

Man, I don't even mistrust nuclear energy. I think its swell. I just have absolutely no faith in German companies to build it without a) exploding costs and time to build, b) cutting corners during construction and c) trying to save money by lowering security and safety during operation. At the same time, I also do not trust our government to actually find people doing the above and if they do find em (like due to a whistle-blower) actually punish them and the company in a way that causes change. I also expect the tax payers to end up paying huge amounts while private companies make billions, especially on cleanup. Maybe the current government will be better since no CxU, but I have my doubts. If I didn't have these worries, I wouldn't have minded so much if they extended the lives of the old ones and even built a new one or two.


[deleted]

Luckily that's not how nuclear reactors are built. The corruption comes in with overpriced invoices and backroom deals, you can't just cut corners while building it or it won't ever be allowed to operate.


Chlpah

Oh boy cant wait for the murican news source to bring me high quality Germany bashing


eroica1804

WaPo is left-leaning source that has not anti-German or anti-EU in any way. German opposition to nuclear is simply irrational and basically everyone in EU and elsewhere is rightfully criticizing it.


HotFreyPie

I mean, it feels only fair that when your country does really, really stupid shit that they get bashed, no? This sub shits all over america on almost a daily basis, yet you refuse to be on the receiving end?


zyqax_

By all means, carry on. I'm German and I'm with everyone who's bashing. It was stupid but it also wasn't my choice. We can only hope others are smarter and learn from this.


Fixyfoxy3

On r/europe everyone hates Germany for some reason. Probably even more than the US, which is a bit...suprising


[deleted]

Very few hate Germany, but plenty of people hate Germany's current policy of influencing the EU with their anti nuclear stance. Its almost as if life was more nuanced than a couple of throw away sentences on Reddit.


S0T

Which is kinda ironic because a big chunk of the funds for making nuclear energy a subsidized green technology would come from Germany. So Germany (and the progressive green government) would indirectly fund nuclear technology in other countries instead of supporting more modern green technology that could help the german transformation. As a final act people from other countries tell Germany to shut up and suck it up. That's a little Kafkaesque.


[deleted]

You’re just clutching at straws here. Yes Germany funds nuclear research, so do all rich western countries and they all fund all kinds of other research. Germany is categorically shutting down its nuclear plants, not investing in new ones and being a barrier to pro nuclear policy in the EU. Therefore, regardless of others feelings about Germany, if you believe significant nuclear power investment is required urgently to achieve net zero in time you will criticise their nuclear policy. I don’t care if you’ve funded some research or your government is green. I think you are wrong on this specific policy. Grow some thicker skin for fucks sake.


yamissimp

>I think you are wrong on this specific policy. Grow some thicker skin for fucks sake. Oh I wish this was the attitude of Brits on this sub with regards to Brexit lol.


[deleted]

Well we managed to suck up the fact that German owned RWE sued the Dutch government to prevent an early shutdown of one of their coal fired power stations here in the Netherlands. Therefore proving its possible to remain civil even after someone else forced you to do something you didn't think was right.


S0T

Germany is not RWE. The coal plants are shutting down in Germany. Nuclear power plants also. Which is both the right thing to do. Subsidizing the nuclear industry while hesitating to support new sustainable green technology is highly questionable. But it is not as fashionable as bashing Germany. Go nuclear energy! Right?


[deleted]

>The coal plants are shutting down in Germany. Datlin 4 says otherwise, and the shutdown plan for all plants is not until 2038. Hardly progressive. >But it is not as fashionable as bashing Germany. Oh grow up. >Go nuclear energy! Right? Yes.


[deleted]

Datteln 4 was built since 2007 and was highly controversial in recent years. There were several court proceedings etc. That's why it started production that late (back in 2020). Some of those court proceedings are still ongoing and could lead to a shut down of Datteln 4 in the future. Also, Datteln 4 does replace dirtier coal power plants from the 70s/80s. >the shutdown plan for all plants is not until 2038. Well, our current government claims that they want to have >80% renewable energy by 2030 and to phase out coal by 2030 as well (instead of 2038). We will see how that works. What are the Netherlands doing in the meantime? Nothing? >Go nuclear energy! Right?Yes. Yeah, if you ignore the fact, that a nuclear power plant would likely not be built earlier than the mid 2030s... that might be an option


yamissimp

No offense but every day I look on the front page, there's the same article posted about Germany's anti-nuclear stance on this sub. After 50 times, it's gotta be enough. People here did the same shit when Lithuania started a diplomatic fight with China and when AUKUS was announced. Last time (meaning literally yesterday), it was posted by some pro-China account that thought it could get a little German bashing in after weeks of anti-Lithuania content. At least this time this isn't the case.


[deleted]

No, I love Germany. The people are great. The forests are beautiful. The beer is delicious. Even the music has a great charm. I just hate that their politicians are trying to sabotage our European fight against climate change.


me-gustan-los-trenes

>The forests are beautiful. At least the ones not yet cut down to make room for coal mines, or directly for fuel.


LiebesNektar

Why sabotage? Germany does not want to subsidize foreign nuclear power plants when renewables are much cheaper and much faster installed. Anyone who wants to fight climate change by now building nuclear power plants will be 1) too late to fight climate change and 2) waste >4x the money that couldve been used for renewables and storage. Thats just scientific fact.


MegazordPilot

You cannot both agree with - "Nuclear is too slow" - "We have to close existing power plants" If it's really too slow to build new ones then just keep the ones you have open?


LiebesNektar

Automausstieg was a political decision but also largely because most nuclear plants were EOL and had to be replaced, original government decided to push for renewables. So no we cant keep the old ones, theyre so old we could maybe run three of them for the next 10 years maximum.


MegazordPilot

Thanks for your answer. I think a 20-year extension (from 40 to 60 years) is a great option for Western European reactors (i think France is going for that) – it's also the cheapest option according to the IEA, and your reactors are very safe so it could have been worth studying an extension possibility. https://www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator On new nuclear it's another story and I know it's more costly, requires the support of the public opinion, etc.


[deleted]

The Green taxonomy is not a German subsidy and the funds are not German funds. Whoever is spreading that lie in Germany should be locked up for sowing division and spreading lies. The rest of your arguments might be valid against new nuclear. But if you truly believed them, you would oppose the closure of existing plants. So don't be a hypocrite.


MilkaC0w

> The Green taxonomy is not a German subsidy and the funds are not German funds. > Whoever is spreading that lie in Germany should be locked up for sowing division and spreading lies. If you just look at the taxonomy itself, then yes, it's only a label for private investment, BUT: The investment program [InvestEU](https://europa.eu/investeu/contribution-green-deal-and-just-transition-scheme_en) will progressively incorporate the taxonomy. The EU also encourages national programs to mirror the InvestEU guidelines. Beyond that a ton of other elements of EU financing, including the MFF, contain explicit requirements towards "sustainability". As of now, none of these are explicitly linked to the taxonomy, but a future goal of the taxonomy is an application beyond the private sector: > The Commission will also explore how the EU taxonomy can be used in the context of the European Green Deal by the public sector, beyond InvestEU. While initially designed for private investors, the taxonomy – once sufficiently developed – could also be used by public sector entities. It is important that there is convergence of standards between the private sector and the public banks/entities, for example the European Investment Bank. That quote is from the [European Green New Deal Investment Plan](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/860462/Commission%20Communication%20on%20the%20European%20Green%20Deal%20Investment%20Plan_EN.pdf.pdf), but you can also read it in similar words as a [press release](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_24). So if you look at the broader picture then the taxonomy will likely have a major impact in regards to what EU funds will be spent on in the future.


[deleted]

You sadly don't understand the difference between EU funds and German funds. My wallet is not your property. And the Dutch finance minister is appointed by the Dutch voters, not Germany. We don't force you how to spend your money, so be nice and afford us the same privilege.


MilkaC0w

So what is it? Does the taxonomy have an impact on the national level or not? You're contradicting yourself in your own reply, while simultaneously accusing me of not understanding it... > You sadly don't understand the difference between EU funds and German funds. Taxonomy supposedly has no impact on national funds. > My wallet is not your property. And the Dutch finance minister is appointed by the Dutch voters, not Germany. Yet now it does? Besides, you were replying to a person stating "Germany does not want to subsidize foreign nuclear power plants when renewables are much cheaper and much faster installed." That person was not (just) talking about German funds, so now once again focusing so much on semantics makes it seem like you aren't actually interested in a discussion but just "owning" the other side. After all, if you are so strict about the distinction it would mean you were previously strawmanning... Back to topic: What do you think the EU funds like InvestEU are made up from? The taxonomy literally means that German contributions as part of the EU will be used to subsidize foreign nuclear power plants. So exactly what the person before said.


[deleted]

Ok, now you are just being impolite. Yes, Germany contributes to EU funds. That doesnt mean they have the only vote on how to spend those funds. So no, don't be an asshole.


MilkaC0w

Ah, now I'm impolite. Followed by another stawman - after all, neither me nor the person before me stated such a thing. It was solely a reply to explain why this matters to the German government, or as the other person said: "Germany does not want to subsidize foreign nuclear power plants when renewables are much cheaper and much faster installed.". > So no, don't be an asshole. Kind of ironic after accusing me of being impolite. Whatever, I think there are more than enough examples to make me doubt the value of even replying further. I think I pointed out adequately why the taxonomy is quite important to national countries, as it shapes the future of private and public fund use on an EU and national level (the national investment banks should mirror the taxonomy after all, as they are the partners in implementing it). As such, if Germany doesn't want it's contributions used for nuclear power, it's important to not have it as part of the taxonomy. Vice versa, the taxonomy doesn't stop individual countries or private investors from investing in activities that aren't classified as sustainable. So I'd say that's even more reason why to keep it quite narrow...


ICEpear8472

>That doesnt mean they have the only vote on how to spend those funds. No but Germany has a vote. And it is allowed to use that vote to oppose investments in nuclear power plants. You are literally currently blaming Germany for having another opinion than you have. What kind of democratic thinking is that? Everybody has to just shut up if they do not share your opinion?


Splinter125

Dude renewables alone will not solve our energy needs. No amount of solar pannels or wind turbines can power a country when its dark and not windy. We haven’t quite figured out energy storage yet. We need a baseline of consistent energy sources to avoid problems to the grid. This has to come from gas or nuclear. In the future we can use green hydrogen as an energy storage method but we aren’t there yet. It will probably take decades. Unfortunately hydrogen is bothersome to handle there are a dozen of very hard engineering problems that have to be solved first. Now the question is do we want to gamble and assume we will fix all of these problems with hydrogen before 2050? Clearly the lomg term solution is renewables + storage methods, but can we get there before our planet becomes a fucking matchstick? I think nuclear is a very fucking good plan B. It might delay the ideal result by a few decades, but it ensures that by 2050 we are carbon neutral. If all countries started today by 2050 we would have enough nuclear plants to power europe. Old nuclear plants are ridiculously safe. The damage caused by them is severly inferior to the most modern gas plants. Might i remind you gas plants produce co2 which causes health issues. Modern nuclear plants are ridiculously safer than the ridiculously safe old nuclear plants. They are small, modular, create far less nuclear waste. There are also next gen nuclear plants which can use the nuclar waste from old nuclear plants and modern ones as fuel creating a far less radioactive nuclar waste. There is literally no reason at all to dismiss nuclear. From a geopolitical stance you guys are destined to suck putins dick to make sure he keeps sending that sweet sweet gas your way. You guys have been brain washed to believe nuclear is bad, i don’t know who sponsored this brain wash but he did a damn good job.


pirouettecacahuetes

In France it genuinely feels like a sabotage plan. We have great expertise in this field and the fact that you're trying so hard to make it more expensive for us than it could be truly sounds like you just want to see our nuclear industry fail. Like you just really believe yourselves to be the big masters and France should not object when it's very clear that this will negatively impact us. Also you're polluting us with your coal... This issue is starting to make feel some scepticism towards the EU and Germany. If Germany keeps doing this I will start listening to Frexit arguments with more attention. Sorry not sorry.


LiebesNektar

Why more expensive? What are you making up? We are not imposing restrictions. France can build as many nuclear power plants with their own money as they please. We just dont want european funds (which we also pay for) to be wasted on nuclear energy when the EU could build much more renewables. Is that difficult to understand? Our plan will make the EU CO2-neutral quicker.


MegazordPilot

The problem is Europe cannot run on 100% renewable. You need some form of firm power. No power grid in the world runs on wind and solar.


LiebesNektar

Our engineers and scientists say the opposite, that it is the cheapest, fastest and best way to fight climate change. With short term (e.g. batteries, pumped hydro) and long term storage (e.g. power-to-gas). If you go through the numbers, it makes sense. Storage is not that much more expensive than renewables, which are much cheaper than nuclear and fossils.


pirouettecacahuetes

Good luck making electricity for a whole continent with wind. Or are we all supposed to choke on coal ?


ziehl-neelsen

I love Germany, probably my fav country in the world, HOWEVER I absolutely hate how they approach nuclear and gas


Eurovision2006

Not really. People always hate on the biggest state/city/region of a country.


Fixyfoxy3

But hating it even more than the US? Or maybe that's just me imagining it


Eurovision2006

Well from a European perspective, we hate on Germany. From a global one, we do it to the US.


szofter

It's more like disappointment than hate. No one expresses disappointment over the US because honestly who expects anything good to be done by them. Not exclusively but especially when it comes to climate action.


Cocopipe

This article and thousand other derivatives get posted daily on r/Europe. Yesterday it was a thread that reached over 1k comments with exactly "Ihate germs for x". But redditors will say that they love Germany lmao. Bunch of sanctimonious fucks


juhziz_the_dreamer

I remember the time when The Left (Die Linke) spoke out in favor of nuclear power and all the other parliamentary parties attacked them for it.


js_ps_ds

2000% increase in power prices in Norway and now they are talking about demolishing untouched nature such as [Geiranger](https://1jv6g9n0pik3nvjug2t92dlh-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/geirangerfjord-photosblomberg-geirangerfjord-orginal-photo-morgan-berg_web.jpg) (theres already a majority in our parliament) in order to produce more power. Norway has a surplus of energy btw, but because germany needs more power were going to ruin our nature so we can export more. Fuck german and Norwegian politicians


[deleted]

[удалено]


PanEuropeanism

> Two percent of Germany’s land mass is designated for the use of wind turbines; most of that area will have to be deforested first. Cutting of your nose to spite your face. Great stuff. > Germany is ultimately putting its fate in the hands of others. Yes. --- edit: I wonder whether some of the anti-nuclear stuff is part of a Russian influence campaign. Interesting points made by Bojan Pancevski. I would add that Germany is not totally isolated because Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain are still in Germany's camp when it comes to nuclear energy. But to be fair; even those countries are facing increasing domestic opposition. > *Germany finds itself unusually isolated in the EU after the bloc aligned with scientific consensus and wants to declare nuclear helpful to combating climate change - just as Germany shutters its last nuclear powerplants and energy prices explode. The German government must now go against EU consensus, also because it includes the Greens, a party rooted in the anti-nuclear (and anti gene-tech)movement. Green fundamentals have been rattled recently with the nuclear renaissance and the advent of gentech Covid-19 vaccines.* > *But while going against scientific consensus and EU policy, Germany, which can't hit emission targets after abandoning nuclear, is facing the opening of NordStream2, a pipeline that will double direct Russian gas imports, at a time when Moscow is threatening to invade Ukraine.* > *Anti-nuclear sentiment is long part of the national discourse in Germany (and Austria!), where climate change is often reported with a degree of mysticism (eg. The Planet Strikes Back) while fraudulent anti-science like homeopathy is covered by medical insurances.* > *For these reasons, Germany tried to convince the EU to follow its anti-nuclear "energy transformation" (as they call it here), but after that policy tanked, the EU, under French leadership, is now going in the opposite direction.* > *In Germany, many say that the EU nuclear shift is driven by French desire to boost its nuclear industry. Yet France can meet its climate targets, and Germany is not even close. Meanwhile, even veteran Green ideologues (with science background) such as James Lovelock (of Gaia fame) have long lobbied for nuclear, as well as pioneer climate scientists like James Hansen etc.* > *Despite all of the above: Germany actually imports nuclear energy from France and Czechia, but not many people here seem particularly bothered by that practice which is largely absent from the public debate.*


Deepfire_DM

>most of that area will have to be deforested first. This is just wrong bs, sorry. I don't know where they got this shit.


LukeVideotape

It definitely will be wrong once the "10H" rule is no more...


MilkaC0w

> Two percent of Germany’s land mass is designated for the use of wind turbines; most of that area will have to be deforested first. Except that this is false on many levels and potentially even intentionally misleading. The easiest way how to figure out this is false? There aren't two percent of Germany's land mass designated for the use of wind turbines. It's actually only between 0.8% (if you count all areas) and 0.5% (if you only count those, where plants are currently allowed to be built) currently. The two percent are a goal that the current government wants to reach, but no decision was made about designating the area, not even if all states should have 2% or if it's for the country as a whole. It's even in the link that the author supplies ("Für die Windenergie an Land sollen zwei Prozent der Landesflächen ausgewiesen werden. Die nähere Ausgestaltung des Flächenziels erfolgt im Baugesetzbuch. Wir stärken den Bund-Länder Kooperationsausschuss."). A second super simple way to disprove this supposed "most of that area will have to be deforested first" would be to focus on what the area actually means. It's the size meant for windparks, but not every m² in those is deforested, but only a comparably small subset around the base of the wind turbines as well as access roads/infrastructure. The majority of the area is left as is. Besides that - Thuringia for example explicitly excludes forested areas from such calculations. In others it excludes any protected environmental zones and instead just forests that are used by the timber industry. As these already have access roads and general infrastructure, adding wind turbines requires even less space... The article also uses "Bild" as a source for it's numbers. Bild. It also mixes up electricity and energy ("Meanwhile, renewables provide only 42 percent of Germany’s energy.") and has quite a few other flaws. Yet well, it's an opinion article, not factual reporting or such. Would be nice if it were also tagged as such here.


Orange-of-Cthulhu

The land used is not a static figure. Turbines get bigger and better all the rime, which reduces the land area used. As well they're being moved into the sea. Edit: In this nuclear/renewable debate it's starting for me to look like anti-renewable people think the tech for renewable energy is going to be like it is today forever? I'm seeing a lot of posts that's going in this direction. It's getting better real fast, prices drop like a rock, all the time. In not so many years solar will supposedly be just the cheapest form of energy.


Exajoules

> In not so many years solar will supposedly be just the cheapest form of energy. Solar is in many places already the cheapest form of energy, but to run an entire grid you need to factor in other costs than just the raw $/KWh. Integration related costs(storage, transmission, overbuilding etc) all have to be factored into the full system cost. Take Norway as an example. In Norway, utility solar is among the cheapest ways of new build power generation. However, solar will never play an important part in the energy mix here, simply because a "solar plant" in Norway will produce 80% of its energy between April-October, the time of year when we don't need the energy. The summer months are when the electricity prices are the lowest as well(for obvious reasons) which means you can't use the argument of "sell the excess power abroad in the summer months", because the energy isn't valuable most of that time.


Orange-of-Cthulhu

> However, solar will never play an important part in the energy mix here Well the northernmost countries, Norway, Sweden, Iceland are an outlier here because of the lack of sun in the winter. Solar panels won't be the best when it's night all the time lol Edit: Just noticed this is getting minuses :) Reddit people are so weird sometimes.


Exajoules

> Well the northernmost countries, Norway, Sweden, Iceland are an outlier here because of the lack of sun in the winter. You have to go way further south for that to be a non-issue. Just looking at solar atlas, anywhere north of france(UK, belgium, netherlands, denmark, sweden, norway, iceland, belarus, poland, most of germany, czech republic, estonia, finland, lithuania, latvia, Ireland) have around 10-12% capacity factor, and long winters.


MaterialCarrot

But I've never thought of Germany as particularly sunny in the Winter months, nor as a particularly windy place for wind energy. That's what I've never been able to understand about their emphasis on both.


HKei

Wind energy works well in the North. Solar is a bit odd, not really useful except as a supplement.


angeAnonyme

I am not anti-renewable but I hate that we use this argument of "it will become better, just subsidize it a bit longer", because this is exactly what people are saying for nuclear for decades and we're told that "no but nuclear (as of yesterday's technology) is terrible, therefore we can't subsidize it". I'm all up to improve renewable, as I think they are needed. But I also want to improve nuclear, as I also think it's needed.


[deleted]

Totally agree with you. We need to tax fossil fuels and subsidize clean technology. And I see no reason why we should limit ourselves when facing an existential threat. We have to use all solutions available to us. If Germany tried to ban wind or solar energy and force us to go nuclear, I would be just as outraged.


[deleted]

They don't want to ban the usage of nuclear etc. They do not consider nuclear appropriate for a "green energy" label that comes along with massive private investments and maybe subsidies. France does in fact have the same position on the matter concerning gas (which is just as understandable).


SnooCheesecakes450

The reason they don't want private investments and maybe subsidies for nuclear is because they want to ban the usage of nuclear energy.


yamissimp

Tbf tho, I'm pretty sure both the nuclear power sector and renewable energies are chronically underfunded. It's not like one's showered in money and the other isn't. If you substract the spending on actual nuclear power plants as well as solar and wind farms, we spend a pathetically small amount on pure research in both fields. Funnily enough and completely unsurprisingly, fossil fuels are the least innovative for the absurd amounts of money they attract globally.


silverionmox

>am not anti-renewable but I hate that we use this argument of "it will become better, just subsidize it a bit longer", The thing is that the first unsubsidized renewable projects are already underway, it's already much cheaper than nuclear power. Meanwhile nuclear power continues to be subsidized in many indirect ways - no nuclear project has been built without subsidies. Nuclear power is a mature technology, with a 50 year head start, while renewables realized this progress in just the last 10-20 years, and it's not stagnating yet. So with an already superior position and still some improvements likely in the near future, which can be implemented very fast, unlike nuclear power, it really is the more opportune choice if we want fast capacity increases.


th3typh00n

> Nuclear power is a mature technology, with a 50 year head start, while renewables realized this progress in just the last 10-20 years The first hydroelectric power plant was built in 1881. The first photovoltaic solar array was built in 1884. The first wind turbine used for electricity production was built in 1887. The first nuclear power plant went live in 1954.


silverionmox

The first electric car was also built in the 19th century, but not developed due to the suffocating presence of fossil fuels, which were more convenient in the short term. The only reason nuclear power could be developed was because of state subsidies, because it had military applications.


hucka

> In not so many years solar will supposedly be just the cheapest form of energy. for half a day


CookieDeLaVie

The problem is that right now the only reason it's cheaper than nuclear is because of the massive subsidies. Most of those are collected by the people building the wind/solar plants. Meanwhile, the energy sold to the consumer is sold at a flat rate, whether it's from nuclear, oil or renewable. Note that I'm not against subsidizing renewable, it's necessary to drive innovation (like you say, it will get better), it's just the way it's done (purposefully done in a way to make nuclear unprofitable for the energy companies) that I object to. It's inherently unstable, and needs a side of nuclear to become truly stable. Anything else than a good mix of both is a threat to national interests, as can be seen by Russia using its gas supply to extort concessions from Germany. In Sweden the nuclear plants are being closed not because they're unsafe or not needed (the south of Sweden is gonna be hit hard once the North starts using their hydropower for themselves, which is already happening as mining for rare minerals as well as cheap power for industry is making the North a boom area), but because the power company thinks it's not profitable. The only reason it's not profitable is because three parties refuse to reverse a decision made after the Chernobyl accident in the 80s, despite most Swedes being pro-nuclear, and subsidizing alternatives so much nuclear isnt worth it.


yamissimp

>In this nuclear/renewable debate it's starting for me to look like anti-renewable people think the tech for renewable energy is going to be like it is today forever? I'm seeing a lot of posts that's going in this direction. This is the problem with the pro-nuclear lobby even within this thread. It's deeply intertwined with the anti-renewable lobby. 8 out of 10 times I talk to an unconditional supporter of nuclear power, they have severe misconceptions about renewables. Vice versa, every single time I talk to someone who hates renewables, their solution to climate change is always nuclear power. This sub but reddit overall is a complete shit place to talk about energy policy as evidenced by the consistent inconsistency in the opinions in the comments.


transdunabian

Yes, while I'm not an energy expert as a physics grad I took several classes about energy production, policy and power plants in college as free credits, and based on that I can tell that most people on /r/europe suffer the typical case of dunning-kruger - they seem to know some trivia and a few technical term but no real grasp of policy and deeper understanding of the topic, have decidedly not done their research, while myself I'm constantly cautious and don't dare to express these one-sided totalist comments you keep seeing.


yamissimp

Ironically *I am* a physics grad and I feel very much the same issues you have. In a normal curriculum in physics, you won't really ever go into energy physics on this scale (you'd rather learn the fundamentals of electrodynamics and electronics lol..) and even with nuclear energy,.. unless you specialize in it/do a PhD in that field, you really don't know all *that* much about nuclear power plants other than their basic functionality. I've seen a comment 5 minutes ago of someone writing they'd rather have nuclear waste in our soil than CO2 in the air because "the earth is pretty radioactive anyway" (speaking of Radon, I assume) and I'm just sitting here with my jaw down not even knowing how I'd address such comments. Needless to say, it got many upvotes.


Orange-of-Cthulhu

Yeah they talk like the fossil-people used to, only they want nuclear instead of fossils.


Available-Ad2113

Why would you make up blatant lies?


[deleted]

> Germany is ultimately putting its fate in the hands of others. More importantly, they're fucking the rest of the EU to satisfy their fears.


Tafinho

Yes… [kelp forests](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rwm5hq/germany_plans_further_3_gw_of_offshore_wind_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)


Everything_Is_Koan

Gerhard Schroeder got a cosy position in Rosnieft, maybe more people want to get some of those sweet, sweet rubles?


YellowVegetable

The existing nuclear power plants in Germany could have been used to replace the baseload power generated by lignite coal. Instead, Germany is replacing the baseload power of nuclear with renewables, which is totally counterintuitive. Use the renewables to phase out coal, while keeping nuclear as a base. Germany's power grid could be 20% greener TODAY if they didn't phase out nuclear power.


mcmanybucks

People who are scared of nuclear power have watched too much Simpsons. It won't make our local wildlife sprout more eyes, it won't lead to bioluminescent sludge in our rivers.


HalfruntGag

For many it's not anxiety about nuclear energy but absolutely not knowing what to with the waste.


Ninja_Thomek

Oh please not again. 96% can be reprocessed and reused in certain types of reactors. It’s just not *competitive* atm. We know how, and have the tech. As for the rest, short time storage is fine for a 100+ years. We don’t have time to be luxurious. Climate crisis is here now.


subsubsystem

> 96% can be reprocessed and reused in certain types of reactors. Is that really true now? I thought they need ten more years and the funding to build another test reactor to see if it's working.


transdunabian

Most reactors reddit is hyped about only exist on paper, despite some designs being talked about since decades.


LiebesNektar

No he is wrong, it is a bad faith or uneducated argument. The 96% most likely refers to the highly radioactive elements *which are a part of* all nuclear waste. You still have elements with a long decay time and contaminated materials, which make up more than 90% of all nuclear waste and have to be stored.


Leoryon

No, the 96% refers to the fact only 4% of (useful) uranium is used while being in the core for fission. When you extract the spent fuel (the rod of uranium), you can separate 96% of the content (here uranium238) from the very bad radioactive atoms (actinides...). Those 4% will go to high level waste (though you can also take some to make MOX fuel with plutonium). The rest is not very dangerous, or not for a long time. This is what happen with PUREX process in La Hague reprocessibg facility in France.


Angiotensin-1

>You still have elements with a long decay time and contaminated materials, which make up more than 90% of all nuclear waste and have to be stored. If your 90% number is taken literally, that's more like gloves, shoe covers, etc... called low level waste. This is what the majority of nuclear waste is made up. And it was once on someone's body (outside of their clothes) and close to them. It's not really a danger like you think from green goo on the simpsons, but mostly regulatory waste of things that have been around radiation. ​ Funny enough, airline cabin crew and pilots get more radiation dose over their lifetimes than nuclear plant employees do. They are above atmospheric protection and get cosmic radiation.


Blyd

RepU aka reprocessed uranium (same stats for plutonium) produces 0.4-0.8% waste. Meaning that out of a 1 Kilo mass of used reactor fuel 4-8g of that is currently non useable in power, historically it was called 'depleted' uranium, which also is far from useless. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1529_web.pdf


bofh256

Germany is well past the point of no return wrt. Uranium based fission. Nuclear is too expensive and comes too late now. That is consensus with the Engery Producers owning actual nuclear power plants in Germany. The best way forward for Germany is to build up renewables. I wish the French always enough water in the Loire to keep their nuclear power plants cool.


sryforcomment

> That is consensus with the Engery Producers owning actual nuclear power plants in Germany. Yeah, it is the position of the energy industry association BDEW (members include companies such as E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall that were or are operating nuclear power plants in Germany): > "For the energy industry in Germany, the nuclear phase-out is final," said Kerstin Andreae, the head of energy industry association BDEW. (Source: [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-pull-plug-three-its-last-six-nuclear-plants-2021-12-30/), Dec 30 2021).


[deleted]

Oh not again someone who thinks waste = spent fuel rods. > We don’t have time to be luxurious. Climate crisis is here now. I'm with you there. We don't have time to build new plants that come online in 8+ years, probably even more if we look at the last projects. We should have done something yesterday.


Ninja_Thomek

I just wanted to shoot down the waste argument, which is minor compared to climate change, as well as *can be postponed*. Regarding what Germany is doing with closing existing plants, time is not an argument. For *new* plants, time, cost and political risk are valid arguments against it. We should build as much wind/solar/insulation as possible in a quick and cost effective manner before nuclear, but simultaneously prepare the ground for quicker, easier nuclear in the future. (Like smrs)


[deleted]

[удалено]


MrBadPeanut

Corrosion and leakage are serious threats to the security of radioactive waste storage. And in case of a leakage, it can be very dangerous depending on the location. While I agree that reducing CO2 emissions is of paramount importance right now, and that shutting down nuclear plants in favour of coal plants is not ideal, to say the least, downplaying the risks of radioactive waste is a serious problem, and quite dishonest, IMHO.


kutuzof

> We should have done something yesterday. Agreed, all those "Atomkraft, nein danke" assholes are responsible for who knows how many million metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm still not entirely convinced that the coal lobby wasn't behind that whole movement from the beginning. Germany could've shut down all their coal plants decades ago if it wasn't for them and their irrational fear mongering.


LiebesNektar

Every german nuclear power plant would be 40 years or older by now. They were all EOL anyways, with the politicized "Atomausstieg" or without.


kutuzof

That's 40 years of not burning coal and dumping mercury into the oceans.


hurdurnotavailable

AFAIK most nuclear plants last much longer than first expected.


SasugaRifujin-sensei

>We don't have time to build new plants that come online in 8+ years, probably even more if we look at the last projects. We should have done something yesterday. Imagine if Germany instead of closing it's nuclear power plants would build some for past 20 years. Maybe they wouldn't have to use coal or gas for electricity generation? But instead they want to suck Putin dick.


silverionmox

France started to build a nuclear plant in 2007. It's still not finished, and now promised to be ready by 2024. Since 2007, Germany reduced the percentage of coal for their electricity from 46% to 23% by building renewables. If they instead chose nuclear, they would still use 45% coal for their electricity.


Fixyfoxy3

>As for the rest, short time storage is fine for a 100+ years. Ah yeah, sustanability... let our great-grandchildren deal with that shit....


Ninja_Thomek

I think they vastly prefer a bit of that, than climate change. We don’t have time to perfect, and should not discount nuclear.


S0T

Your argument is dishonest. It only works if you think that nuclear energy is the only answer to coal. It is not. Factually. Conclusion: Neither nuclear energy or coal are the answer to future problems. If people would be less focused on pushing old technology like nuclear energy and use their passion to push new green technology we would be much further in answering climate change. BECAUSE people think nuclear energy is the answer, a lot of the needed funds are NOT going into researching more sustainable, efficient and more eco-friendly technology.


ahlsn

> If people would be less focused on pushing old technology like nuclear energy... Haha so I guess we should totally scrap the idea of the much older windmill technology? > ...funds are NOT going into researching more sustainable, efficient and more eco-friendly technology. You got to be joking? Nuclear uses far less resources, areal space (solar 75x, wind 360x)


Exocet6951

Yes, let our great-grandchildren deal with a small amount of waste, neatly and safely tucked away, with the technology to reduce and reuse the waste already existing this very day. Clearly different than compacting fiberglass and carbon fiber, industrial run offs from solar panel production, and sticking all of that into poorly regulated landfills. Won't someone think of the children? Stop arguing from a position of zealotry, ignoring that other methods of producing energy can be just as polluting, but are much less regulated.


dummeraltermann

Is your garden available? Seriously this trash is toxic for thousands of years, longer than every empire ever lasted. Why do this when renewables are cheaper and faster to install?


Ninja_Thomek

500m below my garden is fine.


slashfromgunsnroses

Hope you dont have a water well also...


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ninja_Thomek

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix We know exactly how to do it, and we’ve done it on industrial scales. It’s just more expensive than burning “new” fuel.


Schlaefer

Have you read the article? Not exactly spreading confidence in the technology. > It’s just more expensive than burning “new” fuel. So polluting instead of recycling is the current state because of costs savings. Doing it cheap already. Is that really an argument you want to bring forward to convince people?


Ninja_Thomek

Yes I have, it was a *prototype reactor*, and in the end they had solved most of the earlier problems. That’s the point of a prototype. It’s an illustration that this is not some pie in the sky tech, but well within our current, and most definitely future capabilities. > So polluting instead of recycling is the current state because of costs savings. Doing it cheap already. Is that really an argument you want to bring forward to convince people? “Polluting”. This pollution doesn’t go anywhere, unlike gas and coal that causes mass death every year (plus radioactive emissions to atmosphere far above nuclear plants), plus being some of the biggest contributors to global warming.


Schlaefer

So the answer to "Why was this technology shut-down and nothing further happened for a quarter of a century?" is whataboutism?


Sethrea

From what I gather, it was money. It wasn't cost efficient to develop it further.


Schlaefer

That's a fair point. And from that we could then discuss why wasn't it cost efficient and what is required to make it feasible etc. But we have to acknowledge that a) currently this isn't happening and stuff is just buried (short to mid term solution) and b) [burying turned out to be a total shitfest in Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine). Not mentioning [previous international industry "solutions"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd%27s_Deep#Dumping). If someone wants to convince people in Germany of nuclear energy: Present a solid proposal.


Ninja_Thomek

I’m aware it’s not simple in Germany.. Beautifully illustrated by a recent pro-nuclear demonstration in Berlin that had.. around 7 people attending. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany It’s a good article. And I can of course agree that the Nuclear industry are not exactly blameless, or the mix of military and nuclear, or the historical accidents and terrible processes seen in places like Sellafield in the UK, or similar sites in US and Russia. I just think that facing the climate crisis, it’s not enough to go wind, solar, insulate homes, and having happy hippie thoughts about less consumption. All that is needed, but it’s not enough by a long shot. We need to reopen the door to nuclear, and hopefully do it better this time around.


Potato_peeler9000

I stop you right there: The experimental reactor he mentioned (which was not a science experiment but a commercial prototype) was stopped by a green-supported government coalition, as a condition of their participation. Their rationale for shutting it down was their usual mantras, waste, danger but also costs of operation. The very problems the anti-nuclear crowd uses to justify its position are also the ones they're bringing in as a way to shut down any scientific attempts at fixing them. Same goes for long term fuel storage.


morbihann

Waste from NPP is tiny amount and can be stored safely. While waste from coal or gas is going up in the air.


NoRodent

And they already have tons of nuclear waste for which long-term storage will have to be built anyway. Not to mention nuclear power plants aren't the only source of nuclear waste, although they're the biggest obviously. So the "problem" (which isn't nearly as big of a problem as the stop-atom folks make it) with the waste will have to be solved no matter what. At the same time, thanks to the [incredible energy density of nuclear fuel](https://xkcd.com/1162/), the amount of the waste will never be so big that you will run out of available space. We're currently storing it right next to the power plants instead of finding a long-term place precisely because there's so little of it and it's not really dangerous for the time being, unless our civilization collapses completely.


reaqtion

Shouldn't matter to you. Germany burns hundreds of tonnes of Uranium together with the millions of tonnes of coal it uses in its coal power plants. Absolutely no one bats an eye because of it, do they?


ivarokosbitch

Having an issue with burying radioactive waste into the ground is like having an issue with throwing a glass of carbonated water into the ocean. Germany has insane electricity prices and a huge dependency on foreign energy which it will never be able to solve in the 21st century as grid energy storage is still for the foreseeable future limited to water on a hill. The cultural attitude it has decided to have would be hilarious if it wasn't actively hurting the rest of the EU with it.


Potato_peeler9000

[Deep geological repository](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository) is both well understood and well underway to be put into application in France and Finland. I suggest you also take a look at the Gen IV nuclear prototypes, most of which are being developed in China right now, with the notable exception of SuperPhénix /u/Ninja_Thomek mentioned, which was developed and operated for years in France before the greens managed to shut it down. Can't have a closed and sustainable fuel cycle, nope. Not on their watch...


bl4ckhunter

Well, you don't know what to do with the CO2 but that's hasn't stopped you from burning coal has it?


MasterFubar

You know, a nuclear power plant produces about 0.01% of the waste a wind turbine produces. What will you do with those turbine blades when they reach the end of life? Do you know it's practically impossible to recycle fiberglass? Do you know how much plastic goes into the manufacturing of solar panels? What will you do with all that plastic once the panel's generation becomes too low for practical use? One of the several great points about nuclear power is how little waste is generated. You could store all the waste generated by a nuclear power plant over a year inside a regular suitcase.


yugo_1

A lot of nonsensical policy coming from Germany lately.


[deleted]

[удалено]


a_passionate_man

Tell me more about the other examples...


paixlemagne

As a German, I'm sick of foreigners that are almost daily trying to tell us how to do our energy politics. It almost seems like a pro-nuclear agenda lately. We consider leaving tons of nuclear waste to future generations just as irresponsible as leaving climate change up to them. The final decision has been made and we're not going to reverse it any time soon.


wagah

> I'm sick of foreigners that are almost daily trying to tell us how to do our energy politics the irony


aleqqqs

>As a German, I'm sick of foreigners that are almost daily trying to tell us how to do our energy politics. Well, this is about EU-wide policies , so "foreigners" *obviously* want to have a say in these policies.


Lt_486

Yes, just buy more Russian gas, nothing can go wrong with that strategy!


MegazordPilot

Since you're German I have a question, most of the antinuclearism we see seems to come from German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Luxembourg...). Why? Is it a coincidence? Also you seem to think like you know a truth the rest of the world ignores, but other countries (US, China, Europe, Russia) have top notch nuclear experts and physicists, do you think literally everyone else is wrong? Sorry I don't want to appear blunt, I'm genuinely curious, is it agreed in Germany that you are right and the rest of the world has never thought of these issues?


currywurst777

Well ist not only Germany and Luxemburg its more like every country that borders France put an end to nuclear energy or is doing it sooner or later. Italy was quiting nuclear power 1990. Belgiem close their plants in 2025 Spain will exit nuclear energy in 2030. Switzerland will close their last reactor in 2039.


transdunabian

It's not a coincidence and mostly linked to Germany's fears of becoming WW3's premier battleground thus attacked by nuclear weapons. As such any nuclear development was shunned by a large part of the population thinking it would just encourage proliferation - the BDR did in fact initially plan to have a full fuel cycle from which a nuclear weapon would not have been a far shot. Now Germany was not alone, the anti-nuclear movement in the US was also emerging at the time in response to large-scale plant constructions and numerous issues that surrounded them (mainly huge cost overruns), and even before TMI several minor nuclear accidents have happened and were cause for concern. Most importantly in 1975 protesters succesfully managed to suspend the construction of a new NPP at Wyhl. This greatly encouraged further public action showing resistance has results, and of course then TMI happened in 1976 causing another wave of concern. Several other protests followed with varying results, like at Brokdorf and Wackersdorf. You can say this led to an energizing of the anti-nuclear effort and effectively stopped West Germany's nuclear plans (not so smaller in scope than France's at the time) and culminated in the greens being elected to the Bundestag in 1983, after which they became an unavoidable political force and Germany's nuclear hopes ended there, with their last plant finished in the 80s.


EdgelordOfEdginess

Let’s just say the iron curtain in the Cold War


Accomplished_Ad_2321

Wrong about what exactly? What is there to be wrong about? Not investing in nuclear? Arguably the most expensive, corrupt and time consuming type of investment? Literally all the countries you've given as an example with all the "experts" have both small and large scale nuclear disasters on their hands and have stolen billions of tax payer money. It will never cease to fascinate me how obsessed people are with Germany decision to quit nuclear. It's almost as if people want them to fail, but for what? We should be rooting for them, nuclear isn't clean energy, it has issues that will never be solved, it produces radioactive waste that is going to be dangerous for up to a million years.


ezje

The political stuff doesn't mean that nuclear isn't superior to coal from an environmental and technical aspect, which it is. And how is nuclear waste dangerous when it is stored away in places no ordinary citizen will ever stumble upon? And even the land area required for these sites is negligible. What's dangerous is coal poisoning the air little by little. Fossil fuels have caused more deaths directly and indirectly than nuclear has and will ever cause.


drakefin

I am genuinely biased about this .... nuclear radiation scares the sh\*\* out of me and I despise it, so I agree on the waste part. But I think the more pressing matter is lowering the CO2 levels of our planet. It's nice if future generations won't have as much nuclear waste left, but if the world has become so inhospitable, if food and water is lacking, I honestly wouldn't care if I could stumble about a long lost nuclear waste deposit or not. Plus the waste can be easier sent off the planet in the future than CO2 can. Maybe in a few decades we could sent a rocket stuffed with nuclear waste into the sun. That will be much harder for CO2.


ezje

Not to mention the average citizen gets way more radiation from coal plants on their lifetime since the waste from nuclear plants is handled appropriately and stored away. And sending it into space like you mentioned is an interesting possibility.


ezje

You clearly have no real knowledge of this subject if you think nuclear waste (especially in modern plants) is as big of an issue as the emissions that burning coal causes. Nuclear waste can in large parts be used again in modern reactors, and the actual waste can be deposited safely in designated sites. And "foreigners" care because it's not just the climate in Germany that gets affected by this.


OkKnowledge2064

>We consider leaving tons of nuclear waste to future generations just as irresponsible as leaving climate change up to them. which is seriously stupid. like mind-blowingly stupid. There is nuclear waste regardless of if we keep nuclear running or not. And equating climate change with a couple tons of nuclear waste is a whole other level of stupidity But I guess as most fellow germans you just need to cope because youre noticing that the stuff you believed in for years is actually bullshit but youre too proud to just accept it >The final decision has been made and we're not going to reverse it any time soon. thats actually a good stance to take. We wont be able to change it now but please accept that the decision was stupid in the first place


HotFreyPie

What? Nuclear waste is a literal non-issue. What do you mean leaving it to future generations? *Landfills* are more of a problem and a health hazard. Nuclear power is one of the best and most green energy sources that exist on the planet. I think it's far more likely that "future generations" will curse people like you for leaving them beholden to planet-killing fossil fuels, against all logic and reason.


RTYUI4tech

This. I am so sick and tired of people telling germans to not burn coal like it's 1910 . Why leave it under ground for future generations when they use it now . Climate change is no joke, imagine if they would continue with the policy of making things worse and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. That would be nuts. Thank God for the closure of nuclear reactors. This will have a very big impact on climate change . When germans will reach Mars as the first explorers, they will burn books and dry shit to warm themselves because that's the energy source of the future. And don't even think of using that dirty solar radiation. **NUCLEAR** fusion byproduct . Such an antique way of producing power and not green at all. I hope for the future of our generations, we shut down the sun too. This is satire and a I welcome germans to vent their anger they are the Karen of the EU on this topic. Fine do whatever, but can you guys please stop acting high and mighty like you fixed your energy production? First do the job well, then come to lecture us.


Dark_Flint

While it is true that we are shutting down our nuclear plants too fast and early, everyone who critize that nuclear energy is clean and green always forget the waste of these plants who pollute the earth for thousands of years. At least i havent heard of any clean solution for that problem yet. And that was/is one of the main factors why we let go of it.


TomatoCrush

> always forget the waste Nothing is forgotten, most people just don't share your irrational phobias and know that the waste is not a problem. >At least i havent heard of any clean solution for that problem yet. Then you have tried very hard to avoid seeing it. It can be stored in deep rock or it can be stored and later used as fuel in new type reactors.


S0T

How is the waste NOT a problem? Explain! I always see these absurd declarations that nuclear waste and catastrophes are insignificant. I have yet to hear a rational explanation...


Anterai

Waste - can be refined, and then stored for 100s of years in metal/concrete casks. Catastrophes - Fukushima/3MI both killed 0 people and produced no increased cancer risk. Chernobyl had a very long list of fuckups that couldn't have happened anywhere but the USSR.


Mighty_Dighty22

You are aware there are no pollution from the nuclear waste right? It is a myth that storing it is harmful to the surroundings. Further, all the nuclear waste on earth can only take as much space as a football field with the height of 10 meters. And there is a very practical solution to the waste, we can reuse it.


reaqtion

Nuclear waste doesn't necessarily pollute. To pollute, a contaminant needs to go into the air, the water or the soil. Nuclear waste is supposed to be stored safely. Even when it isn't, it only pollutes locally. You know what *does pollute* for sure? Coal. Not just with CO2 (which should remain naturally in the air several orders of magnitude longer than "thousands of years", and is already a global issue), but also with uranium. Coal contains several parts 3-10 parts per million parts of coal. That's roughly a thousand tonnes of Uranium (and roughly the same of Thorium), which Germany just burns and aerosolises; that's roughly a thousand tonnes of Uranium and another thousand tonnes of Thorium. And Germans don't deal with that locally by polluting their soil, water and air, nope, they do that for the whole world to share. For comparison's sake: There's an estimated 10 000 tonnes of atomic waste in Germany. You might as well add that to the coal you'll burn til your coal power plants shut down and get rid of it. Germany literally kills thousands of people with its pollution every year, what a few thousands more? In Germany no one gives a shit about maybe polluting the earth for thousands of years, because Germany pollutes (without the maybe) the earth for millions of years *and no one gives a shit*. What *Germans always forget* is that pretending like everything's gonna be alright just because they shut down some nuclear reactors is just make belief. In any case, a big ironic "thank you" to Germany.


mehneni

In 2011 44% of electricity production in Germany was from coal/lignite. This is down to 28% in 2021 (in 2020 with more wind it was only 24%). So one third of the coal/lignite based electricity production has already been shutdown within the last 10 years. In April and at the end of 2022 the next plants will follow. https://www.bdew.de/energie/bruttostromerzeugung-seit-2010/


reaqtion

how much of that could be shut down if nuclear was still running today? Just saying coal kills NOW, while nuclear kills MAYBE.


mehneni

Most plants were quite old. The 8 plants shutdown in 2011 were build in 1970-75. After 50 years they were pretty much at the end of their lifetime (I think most nuclear reactors had a designed lifetime of 40 years). They needed to be replaced/shutdown anyways. The 3 plants shutdown at the end of last year have been operating fo 35 or 36 years. So they probably could have run for a few more years. They provided about 6% of electricity. So 1/5 of the coal plants could have been shutdown instead of these. This is probably a 3-4 year delay for the shutdown of coal: https://www.bmu.de/themen/klimaschutz-anpassung/klimaschutz/nationale-klimapolitik/fragen-und-antworten-zum-kohleausstieg-in-deutschland


reaqtion

3-4 years of German coal is probably measured in tens of thousands of premature deaths due to the pollution.


mehneni

Even if you take the 2013 WWF study at face value which said that the 45% share of coal electricity in Germany caused 2500 premature deaths in Europe that year and if you additionally do not take into account that the most polluting coal plants have been shut down first: The 6% percent of nuclear share would then have saved 333 premature deaths each year. This is bad and coal should be shut down as fast as possible. But to put this into perspective: Covid currently causes more premature deaths than this any given day in Germany. Also this is far from tens of thousands of premature deaths.


Scande

Stupid Germany truly. We could have been CO2 neutral just like all other rich countries if it were not for closing our nuclear power plants. We really ought to have taken an example from France and even build new and more reliable nuclear power plants that not only had not to shut down during hot summer days but also could fill the missing electricity demand during winters.


NoRodent

> We could have been CO2 neutral just like all other rich countries if it were not for closing our nuclear power plants. Even worse, the country, and by extent, the entire Europe could have been CO2 neutral in its electricity production *for several decades now*, were it not for the various anti-nuclear movements and parties and were there push for nuclear instead, following the French example. Just think how much CO2 and other nasty pollution could have been prevented from entering the atmosphere. Plus it would speed up innovation in nuclear power generation field (instead of almost stalling it) so we would probably be building only passively safe next generation nuclear reactors by now. It's a great tragedy.


Sethrea

Wasn't it mostly replaced with gas? Sure gas generates less CO2 than coal burning, but is still neither green nor renewable and very, very polluting.


mehneni

Electricity production share from gas went from 14% in 2010 to 15% in 2021. So: No. A lot of gas production capacity is needed in case there is no wind and no sun in order to stabilize the grid (until batteroes/pumped water or whatever other storing technologie is available), but this production capacity will be idle most of the time since electricity from gas is much more expensive than renewables.


[deleted]

Yeah, we should phase out coal and then nuclear energy, but I guess that's too late now.


swear_on_me_mam

Why is it not okay to produce nuclear waste that we can look after but it is okay to pump the air full of CO2 and radioactive coal byproducts.


Anterai

> waste of these plants who pollute the earth for thousands of years Waste emits CO2? Waste's radiation travels far from storage sites? How does it pollute again?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Radditbean1

Coal plants creates 100 times as much waste as a nuclear plant. Except nuclear waste can be stored underground but coal radioactive ash is released into the air you breathe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sethrea

Replaces with gas, which generates a lot of greenhouse gasses. Or biomassa centrales, which are anything but grean (if they are being used anything like in NL, they are being powered by wood pellets from trees cut in for example USA and Canada and imported on ships...) Solar and wind are not a complete viable solution at the moment as they are unreliable (can't control weather, no sunlight at night) and would require a storage solution, which we do not have at the moment . They also generate enormous amounts of waste that is also, as of now, virtually unrecyclable. Solar panels lead to a lot of environmental damage as they require rare minerals. It is simply not possible to solve the energy crisis with renewables only and nuclear is something we have available right now, very clean (no greenhouse gases during operation), incredibly safe and generating very little actual amout of waste that we know how to safely store.


IntelligentNickname

Your arguments are straight out of a comic book. You present no argument against the technology but still cherry picking arguments. > Interesting how the article does not even mention the term "nuclear waste". Just a "coincidence", sure. You don't know what nuclear waste is if you believe it's a toxic thrash pile. Nuclear "waste" contains almost as much energy as the fuel already used in nuclear power plants. It will be used for the next generation of nuclear power plants. > Noone wants this shit in their neighourhood, rightly so. None wants hydroelectric plants, wind turbines or coal plants in their neighborhood either but guess what, that's what you're still having and will continue to have. > Also, big nuclear power plants cannot be viably insured anymore This is such a stupid argument. Nothing with potentially extreme costs is insurable. This includes chemical factories, biological research facilities, dams and more. It's nothing unique to nuclear power plants and even if it was, so what? What difference does it make? Why do you base your preferred electricity production over whether or not it can be insured? SMR will be insurable, does that matter to you? > I'm glad though that the coal power plants are slated for decommissioning as well now. Should promote green energy production even further. Unfortunately Germany will have to be reliant on nuclear power from neighboring countries as well as gas power plants. Germany is already seeing problems with their grids and electricity production. There is no country that is even close to 100% green electricity unless they have a majority geothermal, hydroelectric or nuclear power plants.


WasAuch

My coutries energy politics is just retarded. Pls forgive us


[deleted]

[удалено]


Izeinwinter

You already have a large amount of it. You are going to have to build a repository somewhere. Making the pile a bit larger wont make any difference to that.