3 ms·

The problem with nuclear energy in Germany is, that "the big four" (energy companies) have filled their pockets with sweet, sweet nuclear-power-money and have e

The problem with nuclear energy in Germany is, that "the big four" (energy companies) have filled their pockets with sweet, sweet nuclear-power-money and have externalized all the other costs since the beginning. Insuring a nuclear power plant would cost 72 billion Euro/year [0] which gives a hint about how costly (and impactful) nuclear energy really is. Also there's not really a lot of Uranium on earth. Take [1] for example and this impressive quote: "Given these projections, the uranium resource base [...] is more than adequate to meet low and high case uranium demand through 2040 and beyond. Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base" So, 2040 is not that far, and if we build more nuclear power plants we get into that "high demand" area where we'll use 28% of all found Uranium by 2040. Ok, maybe we find more, but maybe we won't. Water, sunlight and wind on the other hand... Not sure if we can run out of those easily. Renewable energies are the one and only way to go. What's missing is smart(er) grids and sustainable, efficient and powerful solutions to save power once we create more than we use. Why are those missing? Because nobody (as in the "the big four") needed those, when you could just burn more coal or build another "money printer" aka nuclear power plant. So, nuclear energy in Germany is also always a long story of corruption and lobbyism par excellence. [0] https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761954.html https://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/versicherungen/a-761... [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium...

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"that "the big four" (energy companies) have filled their pockets with sweet, sweet nuclear-power-money and have externalized all the other costs since the beginning." Presumably the government entered those contracts willingly, though. I don't understand this framing of "have filled their pockets". If you really believe the money was squandered, blame the politicians giving it away, not the energy companies. "So, 2040 is not that far, and if we build more nuclear power plants we get into that "high demand" area where we'll use 28% of all found Uranium by 2040." Just like peak oil that never happened? But even if we run out, they keep saying we have 10 years to prevent a climate catastrophe, so 20 years would buy us a lot of time in comparison. "a long story of corruption and lobbyism" Corruption in what sense? Lobbyism is not illegal, and in fact presumably necessary. The greens are also "lobbying" for solar power and wind power.
- grandchild 5y ago
  > If you really believe the money was squandered, blame the politicians giving it away, not the energy companies. why not both? believe me, we blame the politicians plenty too :)
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > Lobbyism is not illegal, and in fact presumably necessary It's illegal (and immoral) in most of the world.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    That makes no sense at all.
  - fwn 5y ago
    > [Lobbyism is] illegal (and immoral) in most of the world. Care to elaborate what you mean by that? Wikipedia describes lobbying as "the act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying That in itself does sound neither intrinsically immoral or illegal. Climate and environmental think tanks lobby in the same way as financial or industrial interests.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      The very second paragraph from the link you posted reads: "The ethics and morals involved with legally bribing or lobbying or influence peddling are complicated. Lobbying can, at times, be spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law in order to serve their own interests" Here context is crucial: the sentence in the parent post was a response to "a long story of corruption and lobbyism". In most countries it's illegal to hand money to politicians and its seen as corruption, with few strictly regulated exceptions. In the US it's very different and the amount of money involved is staggering. The term "a long story of corruption and lobbyism" is not referring to the legal and socially acceptable "lobbying" but the other one.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rasz 5y ago
>Insuring a nuclear power plant would cost 72 billion Euro/year [0] Half the cleaning cost of Fukushima, every year, per every power plant, sounds legit.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

"that "the big four" (energy companies) have filled their pockets with sweet, sweet nuclear-power-money and have externalized all the other costs since the beginning." Presumably the government entered those contracts willingly, though. I don't understand this framing of "have filled their pockets". If you really believe the money was squandered, blame the politicians giving it away, not the energy companies. "So, 2040 is not that far, and if we build more nuclear power plants we get into that "high demand" area where we'll use 28% of all found Uranium by 2040." Just like peak oil that never happened? But even if we run out, they keep saying we have 10 years to prevent a climate catastrophe, so 20 years would buy us a lot of time in comparison. "a long story of corruption and lobbyism" Corruption in what sense? Lobbyism is not illegal, and in fact presumably necessary. The greens are also "lobbying" for solar power and wind power.

grandchild 5y ago
> If you really believe the money was squandered, blame the politicians giving it away, not the energy companies. why not both? believe me, we blame the politicians plenty too :)
goodpoint 5y ago
> Lobbyism is not illegal, and in fact presumably necessary It's illegal (and immoral) in most of the world.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  That makes no sense at all.
- fwn 5y ago
  > [Lobbyism is] illegal (and immoral) in most of the world. Care to elaborate what you mean by that? Wikipedia describes lobbying as "the act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying That in itself does sound neither intrinsically immoral or illegal. Climate and environmental think tanks lobby in the same way as financial or industrial interests.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    The very second paragraph from the link you posted reads: "The ethics and morals involved with legally bribing or lobbying or influence peddling are complicated. Lobbying can, at times, be spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law in order to serve their own interests" Here context is crucial: the sentence in the parent post was a response to "a long story of corruption and lobbyism". In most countries it's illegal to hand money to politicians and its seen as corruption, with few strictly regulated exceptions. In the US it's very different and the amount of money involved is staggering. The term "a long story of corruption and lobbyism" is not referring to the legal and socially acceptable "lobbying" but the other one.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rasz 5y ago

>Insuring a nuclear power plant would cost 72 billion Euro/year [0] Half the cleaning cost of Fukushima, every year, per every power plant, sounds legit.