-
Of course it was based on science. That's precisely my point about Merkel. She even went against her own party's long-established position. Politicians, being non-specialists, are usually bamboozled by the total bollocks nuclear lobbyists claim, some of which you also seem to have begun to believe. She at least was able to pull the trigger because she would have understood the real issues. One of the few bright spots in what I consider generally a dismal record as chancellor.
Also, it obviously doesn't have anything to do with being from Germany. You'll be aware of somewhat non-German organisations like the CND.
https://cnduk.org/campaigns/no-nuclear-power/
The few short-term problems the transition caused will soon be forgotten. The long-term problems caused by nuclear power are absolutely immense and far outstrip any damage caused now by coal and gas. Of course other sources, such as renewables, have issues, and the main goal remains to use less energy--which, obviously, isn't happening anywhere--, but all are vastly better than nuclear power.
Obviously, Germany is in the fortunate position of not having a nuclear weapons programme, and there is no prospect whatsoever of nuclear-armed countries reducing their nuclear power base, but it's still good that they're doing it. Y0u can only hope it won't be derailed by future idiot governments.
Nuclear power is still mainstream policy in France, and, oddly, even broadly supported by Les Verts voters--although it's not clear if this is a temporary blip caused by the Ukraine war or deeper convictions.
-
Of course it was based on science.
The speed of the decommissioning was absolutely not based on science.
She even went against her own party's long-established position.
Yes, because she is a very good politician, she knew the tide was against her party and anti nuclear sentiment is high in Germany. It was a very smart political move in the moment, not so much in the slightly longer term.
The few short-term problems the transition caused will soon be forgotten. The long-term problems caused by nuclear power are absolutely immense and far outstrip any damage caused now by coal and gas.
Don't worry, we won't need to worry about the longer term problems when everyone is dead in couple of hundred years anyway.
All risks that exist for nuclear in Germany still exist now but the difference is they're not getting any of the energy benefits.
The transition to renewables can't happen without sorting the storage solution and we're nowhere near that, your desire for a reduction in energy consumption will only happen by making things more energy efficient.
You're the one who appears brainwashed, if every country with nuclear power plants did what Germany did it would be catastrophic.
-
It’s ironic how the threat of nuclear plants somehow outweighs the very real doom being brought about by fossil fuel use. It won’t matter much (to humanity) if all the nuclear plants melt down in 100 years if we’ve collapsed the ecosystems that feed us and the climate systems that harbour us in 50 years.
-
It won’t matter much (to humanity) if all the nuclear plants melt down in 100 years if we’ve collapsed the ecosystems that feed us and the climate systems that harbour us in 50 years.
Classic Trolley Bus problem?
-
This is a much bigger conversation, but how people think that new nuclear power is the answer to transitioning away from gas is completely beyond me.
Just on cost alone, nuclear is a crazy option.
Hinkley Point C is due to take 15+ years to build, will cost around £40 billion (or much more by the time it's finished) and will generate 3.2GW.
By comparison, just today the government announced it secured 5GW of new energy generation with a £1.5 billion auction of offshore wind. This will probably be built in the next 5 years, if not sooner.
Only £1.5 billion this year, after no new renewable energy contracts last year (and a near 10 year ban on onshore wind). If we want to transition away from gas, we need to ramp up spending on renewables, not build new nuclear.
-
But according to POTUS 45 the sound of wind turbines causes cancer!
(He is clearly an idiot but it is scary that about half the population of the USA will vote for him)
-
That’s not what the discussion was though - it was whether Germany should have kept its nuclear production running, which they absolutely could have done, for years. Vast majority of the cost was historic, and obviously no wait for the power. The logical position would have been to run them at a reasonable % of their maximum capacity whilst building out wind and solar, instead of shutting them all down and making Germany reliant on Russian gas. The move itself seemed in many ways to be of a part with Nordstream 2.
-
Classic Trolley Bus problem?
Not quite. We’re on a flaming plane heading into a mountain, and instead of trying to parachute off we keep discussing how scary the jump might be or how we might get hurt or killed when we land. Meanwhile, we’ve passed the grassy hills and are now in the crags, so it’s going to hurt no matter what, but it’s about survival.
We don’t currently have the tech to make renewables replace fossil fuels. We need safe nuclear to supply energy for our society’s core demands, renewables to meet the rest, and fossil fuels as an emergency back up (I.e., generators, not coal plants).
Without nuclear, we have to plausible way of weening off of fossil fuels. Merkel sold her country out to endear Russia; now Germany is gas and coal dependent, and doesn’t have an exit strategy.
-
What dammit said.
But also
new nuclear power
The 'new' is key for me.
In a similar theme as fracking, there were huge gains in CO2 reduction to be made - which the US did to great effect. But now that ship has sailed.
We're getting there with renewables. So why not commit 100%? Why keep getting side tracked? If we'd started a series of new nuclear projects in the '00s or even early 2010s, fine. Crack on. But we didn't. Move on.
-
We don’t currently have the tech to make renewables replace fossil fuels
What tech are we currently lacking? Afaik, we have all the renewable tech we need to transition, we just need to get more of it out, quicker. Solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, battery storage, heat pumps, electric blast furnaces etc. It's just a question of scale, right?
-
Energy storage seems to be the biggest issue, followed by generation under adverse weather conditions making certain locations less suited to wind or solar.
-
https://newatlas.com/energy/molten-salt-battery-grid-scale-storage-low-temp/
I really like the idea of molten salt batteries and they seem like they really should be almost there for Grid scale storage
-
"bare this in mind" lol
Oliver Schick
Dammit
Gewürzt
Muc-ed-off
rhb
Lebowski
dancing james
ELbowloh
hugo7
EB
andyp
branwen
Big_Ted
Scilly.Suffolk-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
Er, are you still so German that you let an irrational fear of nuclear guide your decisions?
I'm not pro or anti nuclear, I'm pro the best energy sources to give people the best quality of life with the least harm done. Now there are many reasons not to build new nuclear plants, cost being a big one, but the decision to shut down Germany's nuclear plants so quickly was purely political and not based on science.
Wind farms and solar are great but don't come without environmental problems of their own, plus we still need to solve the storage problem. There are no easy fixes but ditching nuclear so quickly and increasing reliance on gas and coal was not it.