Summary

Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, called Germany's decision to fully phase out nuclear power "illogical," noting it is the only country to have done so.

Despite the completed phase-out in 2023, there is renewed debate in Germany about reviving nuclear energy due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at COP29, Grossi described reconsidering nuclear as a "rational" choice, especially given global interest in nuclear for emissions reduction.

Germany’s phase-out, driven by environmental concerns and past nuclear disasters, has been criticized for increasing reliance on Russian gas and missing carbon reduction opportunities.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 43 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out it was a good thing, when the Greens phased out the last 3, it became a bad thing.

That's literally all this discussion is about. Anyone who's actually taken a look at the data knows that phasing it out was the right move and that there's no point in bringing it back. There's a reason the share of nuclear keeps going down in the EU. Germany is also not the only country that doesn't use nuclear anymore.

Here are the sources for anyone interested:

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it. Nuclear is the only viable clean baseload power generation option we have. Solar and wind can't do it, coal and oil are filthy, battery storage is nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn't work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

    "Baseload" is still needed. Renewables are great but they are simply not there yet. There is a world between "potential" and "available".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (22 children)

    I deeply wish that people would understand that this horse is deader than dead. There is no Frankensteinian experiment and no virus that will bring it back to even a zombie-like half-life. So would you, please, please, just stop beating the poor thing.

    It doesn't matter anymore how it died, it's really time to get a new horse.

    Edit: Instead of just down voting, could you explain to me:

    • How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?
    • Who is going to pay the billions of Euros to build new nuclear power plants? The energy companies are not interested.
    • Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades' worth of nuclear waste we already have.
    • How this is making us independent of Russia, our former main source of Uranium

    I just fail to see any way how this could right now solve our problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (22 replies)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    This article doesn't mention the most important part of all. Nuclear power only made up about 2% of the German energy mix. The power production lost by the loss of nuclear power plants was entirely compensated by renewable power and we also have the smallest coal consumption in about 60 years, so the shutdown had no effect on the German power grid.

    The shutdown of our nuclear power plants was also planned since 2011 after the failure of Fukushima. Our government extended the running time by 1 year but it devinetively didnt had the power to just revert the shutdown.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Note that the 2011 plan was the reversal of the 2009 extension plan, that was a reactionary reversal of the 2002 plan to phase out nuclear power until 2022. So the issue was the reactionary "lets make more nuclear! Oh shit, a nuclear plant blew up, lets track back on our backtrack" move by the CDU/FDP coalition of the time. Incidently the parties that also now are also crying to want back nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Propagandist propagandizes.

    More news at 11

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.

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

    We didn't. We chose renewables over nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›