this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
141 points (92.2% liked)

World News

46443 readers
2811 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
141
IAEA chief says German return to nuclear power is 'logical' (www.dw.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months 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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear power only made up about 2% of the German energy mix

Like in 2023 right before the phaseout? What are you talking about?

It used to be 22% of the energy mix.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

To make this clear. Germany decided in 2011 that it finally wants to phase out nuclear(I'm not going into the details about it before 2011). This was 13 years ago. Since then Germany slowly shut down its nuclear power plants. The final shutdown was last year. Before the final shutdown it was about 2% of the total energy mix. Until the final shutdown none gave a fuck about Germany nuclear power plants shutshuting down. After the phase out was done everyone suddenly wants to return to nuclear, even if its not really an economically viable option(I'm not even talking about the waste problems) and even tho that we can't just turn them on. There are only a few power plants left where the tearing down of them hasn't started yet. It would take some time to certificate a lot of stuff(to make sure the plant is safe), get fuel and hire and maybe teach the new staff.

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

Yeah, 20 years ago. If you build more renewables the share of all other power sources goes down.

If you look at the total values in your source, you'll see nuclear to decline since 2006. And from 2021-2023 then the full phase out happened. But the only plants that hypothetically could have ran a bit longer were only left to produce 2%.

To revert now, Germany first would need to invest billions to modernize the plants, which would take years to scale back into it. Also it would likely need to buy their fuel rods from Russia, defeating the whole purpose of sanctioning Russian Oil and Gas.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, 20 years ago. If you build more renewables the share of all other power sources goes down.

Exactly, who cares what it was last year when the phase out was almost done? Claiming that all nuclear was "replaced" by renewables is just a Milchmädchenrechnung to make you feel better. It could have replaced lignite instead.

Anyway, pointless to discuss this people from the feddit.org filter bubble. Let the ballots talk in February.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

You realize that it takes money and workers to upkeep, repair, rebuild plants? Staying with nuclear costs money that instead is better invested in renewables. And you realize that maintaining that share against newly build renewables requires new plants right?

You understand that 20% of 100 are 20 and 20% of 200 are 40 right? Like when you look at the charts, you see that the total production capacity doubled, because of the exponential growth of renewables. So it would need new plants to maintain the share.

So unless the plants you demanded were already in planning in 1990, there is no way they would have been there in 2010. Seriously, with how bad at math and physics the proponents of nuclear power are it is all the more important to keep them away from such a dangerous technology.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We didn't. We chose renewables over nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There is a larger usage of fossil fuels than there otherwise would have been. A certain portion of new renewables replaced nuclear power instead of fossil fuelled plants.

So yes, Germany did prioritize removing safe, clean energy over removing dirty, dangerous energy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Safe like Three Missile Islands, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Clean like Murmansk.

Fun fact, just last week in a supposedly safe storage site in Germany contaminated water was found. Nobody knows where it comes from and where it goes.

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Atommuelllager-Asse-Bergleute-stossen-auf-radioaktives-Salzwasser,asse1684.html

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This "replace with coal" bs is straight up misinformation.

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

Such an attitude afflicts Australia too. We could have close to unlimited free energy, but instead choose to build more Coal since 'Nuclear Bad' and 'Nuclear too much money' (despite the same people decrying the idea of 'too much money' being applied to anything else)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Hmmmm, I don’t think nuclear makes much sense in Australia when we have an abundance of renewable resources available to us. Nuclear energy has never been known to be cheap and rapidly deployable. If we were going to go down the road of nuclear power we will have to start from the ground up given our utter lack of nuclear energy industry. This would take so much time and money. Why do that when we have sun baked deserts, are girt by sea and have every key mineral under the sun.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

According to a 2024 article in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, Germany could have saved hundreds of billions of euros and reduced its carbon emissions by as much as 70% by embracing nuclear energy rather than rejecting it.

Good job German Greens! Well done! 👏👏👏

They are like the right wingers: ideology over facts. I bet if the conservatives win in the next election, fuck some other parts of the country but manage to introduce nuclear again, the next green government will go about undoing nuclear, regardless of its benefits.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The results of that article are at least highly questionable or straight up wrong though. The Fraunhofer Institute had a look at it, found wrong data and calculations and ended their response with

However, it does not seem expedient to make a detailed analysis of the data due to the fundamentally flawed method.

Source

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Ok you'll have to explain how exactly that's the German greens fault. They were not in power when the decision fell to stop relying on nuclear power. Even if they really wanted to there are no plants that are operational right now. We'd need to renovate old ones for a lot of money or build new ones for even more money.

Additionally the specialized workforce needed to operate these plants isn't available. We stopped training new people for obvious reasons and it's not like we currently have a lot of skilled people in unemployment that could be recruited on short notice.

And again, nothing of that has been implemented by the greens. This is the result of conservatives being in power.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Never ever ever. Mainly because Germany is sooo bad with new tech, we don't need more juice :)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We can get more bang for our buck with renewables+storage.

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

No, we won't. A certain dude in the government made sure to cut 99% of the funds pertaining to the study of storing energy (i.e., batteries). It is the same dude who accused the Green Party for only making ideological policies. This is the state of stupidity in this country.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

We won't get batterys developed and built in Germany, but we can still buy them from others. But yeah, fuck the FDP and triple Fuck Linder, May his Porsche always be broken.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

I’m under the impression that large scale energy storage is a bit of an unsolved problem at this point, is that not the case?

load more comments
view more: next ›