5 ms·
Thinking about it makes me mad. For all their renewable production capacity they still average over 300g of CO2 / kwh with all the gas and coal they burn. All o
by lelag 4y ago
Thinking about it makes me mad. For all their renewable production capacity they still average over 300g of CO2 / kwh with all the gas and coal they burn. All of it, credit to the german green movement trying to save the planet from... Not sure. Even assuming the occasional Chernobyl/Fukushima-level disaster, as terrible as those catastrophes are, nuclear plant accidents are localised and will never threaten mankind survival. Climate change IS threatening our future, however.
And don't get me started on the political cost which the news make so obvious now.
- Brometheus 4y ago/remindme 10years
- lelag 4y ago/remindme in 80 years If I have to choose between an additional 3 Fukushima and the loss of thousands of costal cities due to sea level rise, I know what I'm choosing. This study predict than sea level could rise by 2m by 2100 displacing up to 187 million people. Fukushima displaced about 160 thousands. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6561295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6561295/ Pick your poison, wisely.
- thehappypm 4y agoIt’s probably easier to deal with sea level rise since it’s slow motion. If there’s a Fukushima every year.. wow.
- lelag 4y agoI assumed 3 events in the next 80 years. There's been 25 years between Chernobyl and Fukushima, and assuming we build new reactor, there is no reason to imagine it would happen more frequently. Why do you think there could be a catastrophe per year ?
- pfdietz 4y agoThe world uses 18 TW of primary energy, which is about 6,000 1GW(e) reactors. This is more than an order of magnitude increase over current nuclear power reactors. Also, many of those reactors are going to have to be breeders. Accidents in fast breeders are potentially even worse than Chernobyl.
- legulere 4y agoA big percentage of mushrooms and game is still not fit for consumption today in Germany because of Chernobyl. So it's not just local. And even if, Germany is more densely populated than the Ukraine. The Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine is the same size as the state of Saarland.
- lelag 4y agoThe externality of emitting 1kg of CO2 has been evaluated between 10000 usd to 100000 usd. Assuming the lower range, the 300 millions tons of CO2 produced by the german electricity production accounts for 3x10^15 USD per years. That's 789 times the german GDP per year taken away from future generations. Now compare it to the GDP of Saarland.
- lelag 4y agoFound the source at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4. So I made a mistake and it's for 1 ton not 1 KG but my point rest, even divided by 1000: Germany destroy close to their GDP per year with their electrical production emission, which is in my book worse than potentially, loosing a region if you are unlucky.
- tcfhgj 4y agoPlease name a source of that. The environmental department of the german government estimates about 640 euro per ton for the next 100 years. https://www.presseportal.de/pm/62786/4789535 https://www.presseportal.de/pm/62786/4789535
- lelag 4y agoAs I answered to my own comment: > Found the source at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4. > So I made a mistake and it's for 1 ton not 1 KG but my point rest, even divided by 1000: Germany destroy close to their GDP per year with their electrical production emission, which is in my book worse than potentially, loosing a region if you are unlucky.