3 ms·

It was a bad decision nonetheless and it's always worth pointing imho.

by steeve 4y ago

tlamponi 4y ago
That really isn't as objective fact though. Just check how good France, the nuclear power country in Europe, is doing and how much they have to import energy from e.g., Germany and also nuclear fissile material from Russia (rosatom). Nuclear power needs a massive amount of water and constant maintenance, iow., not really climate-change proof and once neglected - and most HN users will know that infrastructure might sooner or later get neglected if its running anyway ("why should I pay for you if everything works" mentality isn't only a thing in IT), and getting those plants then up and repaired again is a huge work and may reduce power production on some sites close to zero for months to years. So, no, it's not worth pointing something out that isn't as black as white as a lot of armchair energy experts would like it to make, especially done in such a gloating manner it rather seems just for fishing for upvotes or confirmation, but really adds nothing to the discussion.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  France is in the same boat because of the same calls to bring down our nuclear fleet. Every government for the past 10 years has been anti-nuclear. Our current president told the industry to shut down 15 nuclear reactors like two years ago. So nuclear in France is a failure in the sense that it's made us the greenest country in Europe (along with hydro-rich Sweden) for the past 40 years, one of the largest exporters of energy, and that despite calls to bring it down we're basically in the same state as Germany right now except we don't produce 50% of our energy from coal and gas.
brookst 4y ago
I don’t see how we can talk about nuclear power in Germany without first going into great detail about what a mistake it was for primates to come down from trees.

3 ms·

It was a bad decision nonetheless and it's always worth pointing imho.

by steeve 4y ago

It was a bad decision nonetheless and it's always worth pointing imho.

tlamponi 4y ago
That really isn't as objective fact though. Just check how good France, the nuclear power country in Europe, is doing and how much they have to import energy from e.g., Germany and also nuclear fissile material from Russia (rosatom). Nuclear power needs a massive amount of water and constant maintenance, iow., not really climate-change proof and once neglected - and most HN users will know that infrastructure might sooner or later get neglected if its running anyway ("why should I pay for you if everything works" mentality isn't only a thing in IT), and getting those plants then up and repaired again is a huge work and may reduce power production on some sites close to zero for months to years. So, no, it's not worth pointing something out that isn't as black as white as a lot of armchair energy experts would like it to make, especially done in such a gloating manner it rather seems just for fishing for upvotes or confirmation, but really adds nothing to the discussion.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  France is in the same boat because of the same calls to bring down our nuclear fleet. Every government for the past 10 years has been anti-nuclear. Our current president told the industry to shut down 15 nuclear reactors like two years ago. So nuclear in France is a failure in the sense that it's made us the greenest country in Europe (along with hydro-rich Sweden) for the past 40 years, one of the largest exporters of energy, and that despite calls to bring it down we're basically in the same state as Germany right now except we don't produce 50% of our energy from coal and gas.
brookst 4y ago
I don’t see how we can talk about nuclear power in Germany without first going into great detail about what a mistake it was for primates to come down from trees.