5 ms·

To be fair: Merkel (so conservatives and liberals) made the decision in 2011 after Fukushima in a move to align with popular sentiment.

DrBazza 4y ago
Unfortunately popular sentiment doesn't equate to scientific fact. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer and less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels in every way. Still, since when have politicians ever let facts get in the way of campaigning for power?
- tuukkah 4y ago
  We are not choosing between nuclear and fossils - we have chosen renewables. Clarification: I'm not German. I'm talking globally and long term. What's happening right now in Germany is just a blip. The big picture: > Clean power growth is likely to exceed electricity demand growth in 2023; this would be the first year for this to happen outside of a recession. With average growth in electricity demand and clean power, we forecast that 2023 will see a small fall in fossil generation (-47 TWh, -0.3%), with bigger falls in subsequent years as wind and solar grow further. That would mean 2022 hit “peak” emissions. A new era of falling power sector emissions is close. https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electricity-review-2023/ https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...
  - pantalaimon 4y ago
    Still coal fired plants are supposed to run until 2038
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    You chose to shut down perfectly working nuclear reactors and keep burning coal. You COULD and SHOULD have replaced coal with nuclear. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron-law-of-electricity-strikes-again-germany-re-opens-five-lignite-fired-power-plants/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron...
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You thought you chose renewables. You actually chose coal, LNG, and buying power from France.
    - fabian2k 4y ago
      Germany exports more power than it imports. And France is only a part of the imports, with 2022 being much lower due to their issues with the nuclear power plants. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/03/PD23_090_43312.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/03...
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        Large power exports come necessarily from using non-dispatchable forms of power generation like solar and wind. Other people who can turn off their power plants will buy yours rather than burning their own resources. In other words, the amount of power a nation exports means very little about how you keep the lights on.
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        So you can import it at winter for much more $$$ than you sold it at summer.
  - polotics 4y ago
    We have not chosen renewables: if you compute how much oil for transport, coal for Chinese electricity, etc. you need to produce solar panels, as well as massive mining impacts, you realise that the new renewables (solar and wind, not hydro) are a complete dead end with current technology. A renewables world made only with renewable end-to-end production looks more like the year 1800 than any Green knows or would be prepared to admit.
- benfortuna 4y ago
  "Nuclear power is cleaner [..] than fossil fuels in every way." Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere.
  - pantalaimon 4y ago
    Nuclear waste doesn’t cause climate change and it doesn’t go anywhere - this is not an urgent problem.
  - Nicksil 4y ago
    >Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I don't understand your argument; of course waste must go somewhere. Nuclear power, with its waste, is still cleaner than fossil fuels in every way.
    - DrBazza 4y ago
      > nuclear waste has to go somewhere. My stock comment for that is: bury it deep and with signs; if we've lost the ability to read the signs, we've lost the ability to dig deep and endanger ourselves.
      - Nicksil 4y ago
        Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
    - benfortuna 4y ago
      I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".
      - Nicksil 4y ago
        >I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. No, we've got a pretty good idea. >So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way". It is, objectively.
HyperSane 4y ago
Too bad the populous are idiots.
mannykannot 4y ago
...made the decision in 2011... That does not mean the plan has to be followed through without amendment today - in fact, it cannot be, unless restarting lignite-burning generators was part of the original plan. Responsibility for this development lies squarely on all those who chose this path today (and regardless of party affiliation.)
ekianjo 4y ago
> after Fukushima in a move to align with popular sentiment. So they were populists?

DrBazza 4y ago

Unfortunately popular sentiment doesn't equate to scientific fact. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer and less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels in every way. Still, since when have politicians ever let facts get in the way of campaigning for power?

tuukkah 4y ago
We are not choosing between nuclear and fossils - we have chosen renewables. Clarification: I'm not German. I'm talking globally and long term. What's happening right now in Germany is just a blip. The big picture: > Clean power growth is likely to exceed electricity demand growth in 2023; this would be the first year for this to happen outside of a recession. With average growth in electricity demand and clean power, we forecast that 2023 will see a small fall in fossil generation (-47 TWh, -0.3%), with bigger falls in subsequent years as wind and solar grow further. That would mean 2022 hit “peak” emissions. A new era of falling power sector emissions is close. https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electricity-review-2023/ https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electrici...
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  Still coal fired plants are supposed to run until 2038
- HyperSane 4y ago
  You chose to shut down perfectly working nuclear reactors and keep burning coal. You COULD and SHOULD have replaced coal with nuclear. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron-law-of-electricity-strikes-again-germany-re-opens-five-lignite-fired-power-plants/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron...
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You thought you chose renewables. You actually chose coal, LNG, and buying power from France.
  - fabian2k 4y ago
    Germany exports more power than it imports. And France is only a part of the imports, with 2022 being much lower due to their issues with the nuclear power plants. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/03/PD23_090_43312.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/03...
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Large power exports come necessarily from using non-dispatchable forms of power generation like solar and wind. Other people who can turn off their power plants will buy yours rather than burning their own resources. In other words, the amount of power a nation exports means very little about how you keep the lights on.
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      So you can import it at winter for much more $$$ than you sold it at summer.
- polotics 4y ago
  We have not chosen renewables: if you compute how much oil for transport, coal for Chinese electricity, etc. you need to produce solar panels, as well as massive mining impacts, you realise that the new renewables (solar and wind, not hydro) are a complete dead end with current technology. A renewables world made only with renewable end-to-end production looks more like the year 1800 than any Green knows or would be prepared to admit.
benfortuna 4y ago
"Nuclear power is cleaner [..] than fossil fuels in every way." Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  Nuclear waste doesn’t cause climate change and it doesn’t go anywhere - this is not an urgent problem.
- Nicksil 4y ago
  >Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I don't understand your argument; of course waste must go somewhere. Nuclear power, with its waste, is still cleaner than fossil fuels in every way.
  - DrBazza 4y ago
    > nuclear waste has to go somewhere. My stock comment for that is: bury it deep and with signs; if we've lost the ability to read the signs, we've lost the ability to dig deep and endanger ourselves.
    - Nicksil 4y ago
      Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...
  - benfortuna 4y ago
    I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".
    - Nicksil 4y ago
      >I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. No, we've got a pretty good idea. >So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way". It is, objectively.

HyperSane 4y ago

Too bad the populous are idiots.

mannykannot 4y ago

...made the decision in 2011... That does not mean the plan has to be followed through without amendment today - in fact, it cannot be, unless restarting lignite-burning generators was part of the original plan. Responsibility for this development lies squarely on all those who chose this path today (and regardless of party affiliation.)

ekianjo 4y ago

> after Fukushima in a move to align with popular sentiment. So they were populists?