4 ms·
Have you got any citations to support these claim? Nuclear usually requires vast subsidies to operate and imposes costs that go on for decades or more in waste
by kiliantics 5y ago
Have you got any citations to support these claim?
Nuclear usually requires vast subsidies to operate and imposes costs that go on for decades or more in waste management. And according to this data, all the nuclear energy output reduced in Germany has already been more than made up for with non-hydro renewables, which are getting cheaper and cheaper all the time:
https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/non-hydro-RE.png https://energytransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/non-...
- wazoox 5y agoYeah, and they didn't do much to reduce their CO2 emissions. They even brought a new pipeline online (NordStream2) to get more gas (because sometimes there's no sun or no wind). What counts for climate is absolute emissions, you know. Investing 300 billions € to get out of nuclear and hardly lower emissions is the very definition of madness to me.
- wazoox 5y agoMore on the Energiewende fiasco: https://www.bundesrechnungshof.de/en/audit-reports/products/special-reports/2021-special-reports/federal-government2019s-governance-of-energy-transition-still-inadequate https://www.bundesrechnungshof.de/en/audit-reports/products/...
- MagnumOpus 5y ago> "all the nuclear energy output reduced in Germany has already been more than made up for with non-hydro renewables". Which means despite all the efforts and billions spent the renewables have helped zero in reducing carbon emissions, because they were used to replace nuclear rather than coal. > Nuclear usually requires vast subsidies to operate This is not true, notably unlike non-hydro renewables.