4 ms·
In Germany we have a thing called Ewigkeitskosten ("eternal costs"). That's how we call the expenses that still arise as a consequence from the coal mining oper
by s9w 6y ago
In Germany we have a thing called Ewigkeitskosten ("eternal costs"). That's how we call the expenses that still arise as a consequence from the coal mining operations, especially in the west of Germany. That are things like constantly pumping around water. About a fifth of the western coal region would be underwater without it. They're called that way because we already knew that they will never go away. That was accepted because it brought the region and its people prosperity.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- merb 6y agoI'm german. and yes I know about that. It's even worse that our politics fought that it is a good idea to keep coal alive that long, worse we keep lignite alive that long, which is probably even worse than anything on the market. (we are the biggest in lignite and it's the worst thing you can do to your environment. Hambacher forst is a eyesore for our country [1]) but as already said it should not be a tradeoff between coal or nuclear. I do not doubt that nuclear is better than coal, I doubt that nuclear OR coal is the solution we should target at the moment. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hambacher+Forst/@50.9072643,6.4922961,7766m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47bf5c94fc8fe1af:0x34d898611d7c9285!8m2!3d50.9!4d6.4333333 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hambacher+Forst/@50.907264...
- cbmuser 6y agoAnd despite we all know that in Germany, we fight nuclear and support fossile energies (coal and gas). > https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
- s9w 6y agoI didn't want to take any side, just wanted to add some context to the discussion as in: This is not the first time we did accept future costs for energy production.