you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 191 points 3 years ago (60 children)

Well yea, countries keep buying nuclear from France because it's clean, cheap, and they don't want to suffer the political backlash from the science lacking environmentalists which come forward when they talk about building nuclear on their own land

  • source
  • hideshow 61 child comments
  • [–] 146 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    German green party

    Nuclear plants:🤮

    Carbon plants (that actually produce more radiation that nuclear plants): 🥰

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    They have spurred on the solar/wind movement successfully though, albeit whilst using coal as a crutch. Even so, without the greens, alternative energy might never have been a discussion in a country like Germany which is positively obsessed with gas and cars

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The problem is replacing nuclear with renewables does nothing to combat climate change. We need to be reducing fossil fuels. At the very least, they should have phased out coal before nuclear. While france was busy reducing its dependence on coal, Germany remains the largest producer of coal in Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    You’re certainly right that their handling of nuclear was inefficient for reducing carbon output.

    I’m pretty pro nuclear, but I don’t think that really takes away from their success in pushing renewables forward, they were a very early adopter of solar thanks to their very generous subsidies and probably helped fuel its growth at a faster rate, so regardless of their unfortunate paranoia around nuclear, they do deserve some praise. Perfect is the enemy of good, and given the speed the world has responded to climate change, Germanys mixed and painful transition was certainly not the worst.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    The nuclear ship had sailed long before the Green Party became part of the current government. While I also think that nuclear power is a much better alternative to coal power plants it’s simply not feasible to revert Germany’s decision when wind and solar is as cheap as it is now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not familiar with the German politics, but are you saying that Germany got rid of nuclear despite environmentalists?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    These decisions are mainly rooted in the peace movement of the 80s (fueled by the nuclear missiles in Germany installed by the US) and the direct experience of Tschernobyl. Its supported by the majority in the public.

    The current political decision was made by the more conversative government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The problem with solar is going to be scaling it to meet power demands. Never mind the fact that solar companies are cutting down trees to make way for solar fields.

    Nuclear energy and hopefully nuclear fusion will be the future

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    It’s too late to start new nuclear projects. The quickest Gen 3 reactor build in the US was 14 years. So starting now, you’re looking to finish near 2040. And for those 14 years of construction, you’re pumping huge amounts of CO2. Over its lifetime it will emit less CO2 than many other forms of power, but that’s too slow. We need to be reducing emissions now, not reducing emissions in the 2050s and beyond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    It's literally never too late to start them. It's too late for them, alone, to reverse the damage to the climate change but make no mistake that until we're dead and buried it's not too late to make more. The KW/h per measurement of CO2 that nuclear plants produce is incomprehensible. It surpasses even renewable energy, that causes pollution from the broken panels and other e-waste. Fission has always been the answer and it needs to be pushed through no matter how fucking late it is so they can then be repurposed into fusion based when we make that advancement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    What? Is there a good alternative? If we could magically make the world 100% renewable+nuclear in only 14 years that would be amazing I think. It would not solve everything, but sometimes it takes a bit to stop the bleeding before healing can start (carbon capture and planting trees during nuclear construction maybe?)

    Is there a faster way?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (59 replies)