6 ms·

They shouldn't be shutting down nuclear. Build more nuclear reactors. That will provide more clean energy and a lot of jobs. Modernize the grid. Make it a smart

They shouldn't be shutting down nuclear. Build more nuclear reactors. That will provide more clean energy and a lot of jobs. Modernize the grid. Make it a smarter grid that is more resilient to harm. These projects pay for themselves quickly and are easy to finance with how much wealth Germany has.

mmiliauskas 3y ago
It needs a recession first though. Unless they manage to "wash-off" all the idiots, solutions that attempt to walk on hands will persist.
barbazoo 3y ago
There's no way that's gonna happen unfortunately. The greens have absolutely dropped the ball in terms of big picture goals. We've been brainwashed into thinking nuclear power is dangerous and the problem of waste is bigger than the problem of having non renewable, oil based, energy. In hindsight I wouldn't be surprised if the oil lobby had a hand in that.
- mschild 3y ago
  The greens haven't been part of the national government for decades until 2021. I disagree with their decision to not keep the nuclear reactors running, but if you want to point fingers at people it's not them that unilaterally decided to stop building new reactors.
  - foxtacles 3y ago
    That's technically correct, however much of the Greens' ideology has been gradually adopted by essentially all other political parties over the past 10-15 years, most likely since it's rather popular with the voters here. There's no political party left you could vote for if you are in favor of nuclear.
    - mschild 3y ago
      Right and their ideology is to build more solar and wind. Which, even when factoring in the cost of batteries, is cheaper than nuclear or almost any other form of energy. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
      - barbazoo 3y ago
        All true. In hindsight though I wish the political debate had considered climate change more seriously in plans how to phase out coal and nuclear.
        nforgerit 3y ago
        Well the plan was created >20 years ago but depended on the lifeline to actually develop enough renewables which got almost completely blocked by conservative governments in the last decade who still phased out nuclear. Don’t blame the Greens for that.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        Solar and Wind power was completely blocked up by conservative governments all over the globe for the past 50 years. Consider Reagan, who removed solar panels from the roof of the white house just a few years after they were installed and not long after multiple oil supply crises in the 70s. Even if the solar panels being installed in the first place was only symbolic, removing them was also purposefully symbolic. America at least had a great chance to invest in nuclear energy and completely end dependence on the middle east for it's energy, but it chose Reagan instead.
  - slightwinder 3y ago
    > I disagree with their decision to not keep the nuclear reactors running It wasn't their decision, the reactors had to shut down anyway for at least some years, as they are lacking fuel and an up-to-date operating permit. The remaining reactors were already running on their last ounce, and it would take some years to produce new rods at Russia, even if we ignore the political problems. And that's even ignoring the billions(?) of euro for penalties that Germany likely had to pay in that case, because the whole shutdown was executed somewhat shaky from the old government.
jonp888 3y ago
What is about HackerNews and the obesession with the decision to remove Nuclear Power, which was only a minority component at it's peak, from the German energy mix, as somehow being the dominant factor in the entire German society and economy? A while back someone unironically described Germany's nuclear power policy as "the single most catastrophic decision ever made by any government in peacetime".
- ThorsBane 3y ago
  The French regret their decisions on this front. It took a war for them to realize their huge mistake regarding energy independence. Germany is repeating the same mistake because of pride. If there are still talks about needing to use fossil fuels to bridge the gap introduced by eliminating nuclear, then eliminating nuclear was clearly the wrong move. The reactors should be maintained, upgraded, and worked on so that there's a lot of employment and a lot of clean, independent energy.
  - nforgerit 3y ago
    Afaik the main reason for the Western world to not sanction Rosatom, the russian nuclear supplier, is France because they frantically need their supplies..
  - slightwinder 3y ago
    Fossils are not used to bridge the elimination of nuclear, that's already done by renewables. Fossils are used for industry and heat, where nuclear never added anything in the first place. And while technically it's possible to use the heat from nuclear plants to replace the heat-usage from fossils, the German plants were not designed for this, and probably not even in useful locations for this. AFAIK for using heat of plants, they need to be located near the places there it's used. And I kinda doubt many people would like to build nuclear plant in big cities.
- slightwinder 3y ago
  There is a good deal of misinformation, astro turfing, and I think also nerdy love for fancy toys. And there is also the problematic trend of the right wing to demonize environment- and green politics. It seems it has reached a level of conspiracy theories now.

mmiliauskas 3y ago

It needs a recession first though. Unless they manage to "wash-off" all the idiots, solutions that attempt to walk on hands will persist.

barbazoo 3y ago

There's no way that's gonna happen unfortunately. The greens have absolutely dropped the ball in terms of big picture goals. We've been brainwashed into thinking nuclear power is dangerous and the problem of waste is bigger than the problem of having non renewable, oil based, energy. In hindsight I wouldn't be surprised if the oil lobby had a hand in that.

mschild 3y ago
The greens haven't been part of the national government for decades until 2021. I disagree with their decision to not keep the nuclear reactors running, but if you want to point fingers at people it's not them that unilaterally decided to stop building new reactors.
- foxtacles 3y ago
  That's technically correct, however much of the Greens' ideology has been gradually adopted by essentially all other political parties over the past 10-15 years, most likely since it's rather popular with the voters here. There's no political party left you could vote for if you are in favor of nuclear.
  - mschild 3y ago
    Right and their ideology is to build more solar and wind. Which, even when factoring in the cost of batteries, is cheaper than nuclear or almost any other form of energy. https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
    - barbazoo 3y ago
      All true. In hindsight though I wish the political debate had considered climate change more seriously in plans how to phase out coal and nuclear.
      - nforgerit 3y ago
        Well the plan was created >20 years ago but depended on the lifeline to actually develop enough renewables which got almost completely blocked by conservative governments in the last decade who still phased out nuclear. Don’t blame the Greens for that.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Solar and Wind power was completely blocked up by conservative governments all over the globe for the past 50 years. Consider Reagan, who removed solar panels from the roof of the white house just a few years after they were installed and not long after multiple oil supply crises in the 70s. Even if the solar panels being installed in the first place was only symbolic, removing them was also purposefully symbolic. America at least had a great chance to invest in nuclear energy and completely end dependence on the middle east for it's energy, but it chose Reagan instead.
- slightwinder 3y ago
  > I disagree with their decision to not keep the nuclear reactors running It wasn't their decision, the reactors had to shut down anyway for at least some years, as they are lacking fuel and an up-to-date operating permit. The remaining reactors were already running on their last ounce, and it would take some years to produce new rods at Russia, even if we ignore the political problems. And that's even ignoring the billions(?) of euro for penalties that Germany likely had to pay in that case, because the whole shutdown was executed somewhat shaky from the old government.

jonp888 3y ago

What is about HackerNews and the obesession with the decision to remove Nuclear Power, which was only a minority component at it's peak, from the German energy mix, as somehow being the dominant factor in the entire German society and economy? A while back someone unironically described Germany's nuclear power policy as "the single most catastrophic decision ever made by any government in peacetime".

ThorsBane 3y ago
The French regret their decisions on this front. It took a war for them to realize their huge mistake regarding energy independence. Germany is repeating the same mistake because of pride. If there are still talks about needing to use fossil fuels to bridge the gap introduced by eliminating nuclear, then eliminating nuclear was clearly the wrong move. The reactors should be maintained, upgraded, and worked on so that there's a lot of employment and a lot of clean, independent energy.
- nforgerit 3y ago
  Afaik the main reason for the Western world to not sanction Rosatom, the russian nuclear supplier, is France because they frantically need their supplies..
- slightwinder 3y ago
  Fossils are not used to bridge the elimination of nuclear, that's already done by renewables. Fossils are used for industry and heat, where nuclear never added anything in the first place. And while technically it's possible to use the heat from nuclear plants to replace the heat-usage from fossils, the German plants were not designed for this, and probably not even in useful locations for this. AFAIK for using heat of plants, they need to be located near the places there it's used. And I kinda doubt many people would like to build nuclear plant in big cities.
slightwinder 3y ago
There is a good deal of misinformation, astro turfing, and I think also nerdy love for fancy toys. And there is also the problematic trend of the right wing to demonize environment- and green politics. It seems it has reached a level of conspiracy theories now.