• Tarte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The article is badly researched.

    This “red-green” coalition banned new reactors, announced a shutdown of existing ones by 2022

    The red-green coalition did not announce the 2022 date. They (Greens/SPD) announced a soft phase-out between 2015-2020 in conjunction with building renewables. This planned shift from nuclear to renewables was reverted by Merkel (CDU = conservatives) in 2010. They (CDU) changed their mind one year later in 2011 and announced the 2022 date; but without the emphasis on replacing it with renewables. This back and forth was also quite the expensive mistake by the CDU on multiple levels, because energy corporations were now entitled financial compensation for their old reactors.

    • Taiatari@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d like to add, my view. I’m from Lower Saxony and in an area nearby they tried for years to establish a temporary storage for the high nuclear waste. I never trusted the notion that the temporary storage will be save, properly maintained and kept from leaking into the local water supply.

      Add to that, that we have had very old reactors who were constantly extended rather than properly renewed. Further emphasising that they won’t care proper for the waste products.

      Then Fukushima happened, the movement for anti nuclear gained massive momentum. I assumed of course that the lack in energy will be compensated by building renewables and subsidising homeowners to build their own solar on their roofs. Why wouldn’t we, we were already talking about increasing renewables to safe the climate.

      The announcement came that atom is being phased out. Big hooray for everyone who had to live next to the old plants or in areas where end-storage ‘solutions’ were.

      Aaaaaaaand they increased the god damn coal which is way worse and really no one wanted but the lobby for coal and fossile fuels.

      Now lots of ppl. on the internet always advocate for nuclear, but never address the fears of the ppl. properly.

      The thing is, having a high nuclear toxic waste storage in your local area is shite just as shite it is to have the damn ash piles from coal.

      If nuclear really wants to make a proper comeback, in my opinion the first thing they need to solve is the waste. We have too much of it already and have solar, wind and water (tidal preferably over damns because those fuckers can break if not maintained proper) who do not create any nasty waste and by products.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nuclear is also very expensive and takes a long time to build. Meanwhile the cost of solar reduced by almost 90% in the last decade.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Nuclear is only expensive and slow to build if you’re building reactors from 1960-s.

      • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Careful. You are waking all the people telling you that it isn’t much waste that those power plants produce and its so easy to store it long term.

        The same people that likely would oppose a storage like that in their own neighbourhood. I feel often people from outside Germany forget how densely populated it is, it is very hard to find area not somehow close to anyone.

        And I would also never trust the promise that this storage next to my home is very definitely going to be so so safe an great.

        • Forester@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I will happily sell the land under my house to let you store sealed vessels of nuclear material. There permanently. I can do that with 100% confidence because I understand the science involved in the matters. If it’s buried deep enough in a proper container, there is no risk.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      What do you mean? Don’t you think transitioning to mostly renewables while coal and gas go down are good things?

      • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Compared to renewables, nuclear creates pretty much zero waste. The whole story of nuclear energy created less waste than one year of waste from solar panels alone.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nuclear is affordable, efficient and proven. Abandoning it instead of promoting it was a dumb, conservative move that hurt everyone involved. Except Russian billionaires, of course.

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is the waste. Germany has radioactive waste and it couldn’t find a suitable place to deposit it for over 30 years. I think it’s still somewhere on rails or in temporary storages. It’s horrible and they don’t want to collect more of it.

      Here is more about the problem that no one talks about: https://youtu.be/uU3kLBo_ruo

      • Pietson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nuclear waste is a potential issue. Fossil fuel waste is a major issue right now.

        The fact that the waste for nuclear is entirely contained is very good. It allows us to place it in permanent storage location like the one in Finland from your video, and perhaps even launch it off the planet in one or two centuries. There is no containing co2, only reducing.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Putting highly radioactive waste on a rocket is a bad, bad idea.

          And guess what: solar and wind have neither CO2 nor nuclear waste as a product, and are cheaper to build and operate as well. Nuclear is comically expensive, and only gets by with massive state subsidies

          • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            And guess what: solar and wind canot take care of base load. Only oil, gas, coal, or nuclear can be run 24-7 with varying output in response to demand. Choose one.