this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
228 points (92.9% liked)

World News

38968 readers
2505 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 36 points 6 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 6 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] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 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] 28 points 6 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] 4 points 6 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 6 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] 0 points 6 months ago

Por que no los dos?

(en Alemans, por supuesto)