• thepig@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Not to be disrespectful to the Germans who are suffering, but maybe now they will not support coal power plants.

      • grandel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Why not? Merz is the chancellor after all. It’s safe to assume the majority of voters wanted him to be in power, even if they are all retirees and idiots.

        • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          We don’t vote our chancellor, nor our ministers. We vote our parliament, the parliament votes the chancellor, the chancellor appoints their cabinets.

      • thepig@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Germany reopened coal mines cause it was too scared of alternatives like nuclear. To me that’s like stabing yourself with a knife cause you are afraid of a bug bite

        • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          To me, your take is completely uninformed, so allow me to enlighten you. When Russia attacked Ukraine, oil prices spiked and conservative media were trying to cause a panic that Germany hadn’t enough natural gas to get through the winter. Tangent: The natural gas levels are much lower today than they ever were 2022, but because we now have a conservative government, conservative media doesn’t care. Anyway, because the start of the Ukraine war was such a volatile time and to assuage any fears, the last government decided to give the last 3 operational nuclear power plants a 6 month extension and to bring back coal power plants as backup. And that is what they ever where. A backup. And building nuclear power takes decades and costs billions. They help neither in the short-, nor long-term.

          • Sailing7@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Username does not check out ^^

            Very much detailed and to the point. Thanks for taking your time against false information matey ❤️

          • KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Afaik after Fukushima they abandoned nuclear no?

            After the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and subsequent anti-nuclear protests, the government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[7][8] Eight of the 17 operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima.

            While nuclear power was gradually phased out of the German power mix, Germany increased its use of fossil fuel energy by 7% over the period 2002–2022, with a massive increase in usage of natural gas and only modest reductions of coal power and oil power.[9] By some estimates, Germany could have achieved a 73% reduction in its carbon emissions by retaining nuclear power during the period 2002–2022 and could have saved €696 billion on its energy transition.[9]

            • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Yeah well, that’s the conservative government for you. We could’ve just as easily transitioned from nuclear to renewables, which don’t have the nuclear waste problem that is still unsolved. And Germany was for a brief time leading renewable energy innovation. But when the conservative government was faced with the cost of providing the infrastructure for this up-and-coming industry branch of the future, they instead cut all funding. This directly lead to the downfall of the German renewable sector (“Altmaier-Delle”). So while you are correct, when taking into account the entire time span from 2002, that Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas especially, it is incorrect to say that not sticking with nuclear was the sole reason for this. Betting on renewables was absolutely feasible even back then, as the current boom of renewables aptly demonstrates. But the conservatives do what conservatives do best: Stifle the future by fearing the up-front investment cost and sticking to the old and familiar instead of betting on the new and future-proof, even when the old way of doing this has already been shown to be unsustainable.

        • Twongo [she/her]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          sry but german nuclear power plants were a mismanaged mess and their closure probably saved lives. all power plants along the rhine river leaked thousands of tobs of irradiated water into the environment, same goes for those at the neckar. those are the ones i know for a fact.

          they were outdated. mismanaged and ticking time bombs and it was time to put them to rest, maybe not that quick but better than never.

          building new power plants just doesn’t make sense because renewables are just WAYYYY cheaper in the long run aswell as the fact nobody wants to build or run a power plant. that’s just an afd and markus söder pipedream.

          solar/wind is about 7ct/kwh after investments while nuclear fuel is at about 35ct/kwh

          our renewable output is almost doubling every year despite the cdu government’s best efforts to turn back to coal because reiche is a board member of E.On.

          Fuck germany but their nuclear exit was a net positive.

        • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          18 hours ago

          That was 2023 to prevent an energy crisis triggered by the russian invasion in Ukraine and these coal plants (not mines!) were already shut down again.

          And nuclear is not an alternative.

          • Forester@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            15 hours ago

            nuclear is not a. Alternative

            Only because your entire country was brainwashed by Russian propaganda in the '90s. Germany used to produce 25% of its power from nuclear. As far as I can tell, currently you produce none from nuclear and still 25% from coal and another 25% from natural gas.

            • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Most of our fuel rods came from russia. Also, nuclear is prohibitively expensive, uninsureable, and has unanswered questions regarding permanent waste storage.

              Renewables are the answer, not nuclear.

              • redsand@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                12 hours ago

                The answer is both. Germany really did fuck up closing those plants. Just like the US 🥲 and for more reasons than you know. Breeding plutonium wouldn’t be the worst idea at this point in history.

              • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                Most of our fuel rods came from russia.

                Idk about that, but even if, but uranium is fairly abundant in the earth, more than gold or silver. Getting it from somewhere else is not a big deal.

                nuclear is prohibitively expensive

                Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.

                uninsureable

                That’s wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.

                Fukushima was a problem of risk assessment and massive complacency about procedures, where fundamental security protocols were ignored to “safe some money”. Also, building a nuclear power plant in an area that is facing tsunamis almost regularly was pretty dumb. And Chernobyl was a case of “What happens if we experiment with that hot rock we know nothing about?”

                and has unanswered questions regarding permanent waste storage.

                Yes, but it’s no longer as much of a problem. We’ve gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we’re able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible. Even tho that processing method hasn’t been put to the test yet afaik.

                Renewables are the answer

                Probably not for germany. We don’t fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power.

                • Solar is the first choice, we’d need absurd amounts of space for solar panels. Also, it’s obviously only available during the day, making batteries necessary. And I mean a LOT of fucking batteries.
                • Wind is great and widely available in the north of germany - but that doesn’t help the south. Moving power from north germany to south germany is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Also has the battery problem.
                • Hydro is cool, where available. Just bad that it’s barely available. Same with geothermal.
                • Leaves us with biomass, which is a nice supplement to the power grid to use up waste from the agricultural sector - but it’s not going to carry germanies power needs in any meaningful way.

                100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany. It’s just a wishful thinking. We can’t magically produce vast amounts of power anywhere. We need a way to produce a reliable base load even in areas that are not in a great position for renewable power.

                Nuclear is the best long term option we have.

                • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.deOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.

                  Even over the lifetimenof a plant, nuclear is by far the most expensive form of power generation.

                  That’s wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.

                  Yet no insurance company will insure an NPP. They are uninsurable.

                  We’ve gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we’re able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible.

                  We already do have a huge problem storing the waste we don’t have and nuclear waste is too dangerous to rely on hypothetical reusability. Germany’s federal Ministry for Nuclear Safety released a report in 2015 estimating the total cost of dismantling and managing nuclear waste from german NPPs based on 2012 prices and not including the cost of disposal facilities to be aroun 6 billion Euro until 2080.

                  We don’t fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power. […] 100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany.

                  It is though. First thing you miss ia that Germany does not have an isolated power grid. In fact, the Conrinental European Synchronous Area is one of the largest synchronous electrical grids in the world.
                  Second, the number of available batteries is constantly growing with fun concepts as using your electric car’s battery for overnight electricity. Every home can have sufficient battery storage individually (even without BEVs).
                  Third, there are still massive capacities for wind parks and solar parks all over Germany and certain concepts can even help mitigating certain consequences of climate change already in effect, like agriphotovoltaic protecting crops.

                  The future is renewables. Nuclear is superfluous, too expensive and too much hassle.

                  Btw, here is more to read on why nuclear is not a solution (german website): https://quellen.tv/energie#Kernkraft

            • Alex Beer@nrw.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              14 hours ago

              @Forester @CyberEgg And over 50 % are renewable. In fact: a vast part of German nuclear technology derives from Russia. So why would it be russian propaganda convincing the germans from renewable? Of course you mean they propagated Gas and oil, but that only worked for the CDU and the far right.