this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
245 points (100.0% liked)

World News

45757 readers
3113 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They already had it and it was working just fine. They tore it down and went full coal and some gas. Now wind and solar are taking over slowly, but it's been years with more pollution and more radiation than any already working nuclear plant would have emmited.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's true. The original plans for phasing out nuclear energy encompassed huge investments in renewable energy. The government Merkel II then decided to keep using nuclear and not invest in renewables, then decided a year later to leave nuclear again without investing in renewables. That little maneuver not only cost huge amounts of compensation for the big energy companies but also nuked (haha) the German wind and solar industry to the ground.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Or Germany could have just avoided the whole mess and kept the nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The old reactors could have been used until their end of life, yes. The effects are exaggerated though. Nobody was going to build new ones. Not even France who rely heavily on nuclear energy has new reactors.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry. In other countries with no nuclear infrastructure, renewables are definitely the better, cheaper, more scalable choice - but countries which invested big many decades ago are in a different position, and Germany's deliberate destruction of their nuclear capabilities has left them dependant on fossil fuels from an adversarial state - easily a worse situation than small amounts of carefully managed nuclear waste while renewables were scaled up.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry.

Shhh... anti-nuclear don't want to hear this. They'd rather project, even though people are talking about how stupid closing down the current nuclear infrastructure and not advocating to build new ones!

I don't support building new nuclear power plants, but it's ridiculous to close down already existing ones given the threat of climate change. NPP should act more like stop gap until renewable energy can take over more effectively.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I answered a very similar comment a little further down:

https://feddit.de/comment/9599367

I'm not claiming it was smart to leave nuclear before coal. It wasn't. But it is what happened and it was decided two decades ago. Nuclear is done in Germany and there is no point discussing it further. New reactors were not going to happen either way.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Nuclear is only expensive and slow if you're building reactors from 1960-s. Modern micro- and nano-reactors can be put in every yard in a matter of months if not weeks.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand, you think we can build miniature nuclear plants for every single house in weeks?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

My man probably played too much Fallout.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

More details here, with proof links, etc https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wish you were right, but you are not. Those reactors don't exist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except they do exist. Almost. First SMRs were scheduled to be deployed right about, but the pandemic fucked it up. The project is back on track though.

MNR study was finished in 2019, right before the pandemic. Feasibility was also finished during the pandemic and the development grants were awarded.

Nano-reactors are still a future, sadly, but if the investments will keep up it won't be long.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It won't have been long for a long time now. It's not a feasible concept to rely on a maybe. We need massive amounts of clean energy now and the way to do that now is water, wind and solar. If these wonder reactors are one day reality that's great.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The problem is that instead of investing into dumb renewables, we should've invested in nuclear decades ago. Now we have to play catch up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

France is a good example. They invest billions in their nuclear power. Still, their infrastructure is old and they can't seem to build new reactors. It's a money sink while "dumb renewables" are the cheapest most spammable energy source we ever had.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Por que no los dos?

(en Alemans, por supuesto)