3 ms·

> Nuclear is and was never a viable option. While fans of this technology are repeating it over and over, the German reactors were EOL. Also: The energy compani

by kgabis 3y ago

> Nuclear is and was never a viable option. While fans of this technology are repeating it over and over, the German reactors were EOL. Also: The energy companies were only able to run those reactors because that has been subsidized in different ways. This is simply not true, German reactors were perfectly fine and could've continue operating for decades to come, shutting them down so early was a political decision. Currently Germany got rid of their cleanest source of electricity while still depending on fossil fuels. At some point it will become obvious that renewables are not enough not power a modern economy and Germany will either stick to gas or become dependent on it's neighbours to stabilise it's energy grid.

martin_a 3y ago
Nuclear energy made up only 6% of the total energy mix. I wonder why everyone is so obsessed with these 6%. Also please tell me, how, starting from tomorrow, we can ensure that we handle the waste products of nuclear power generation safely and easily. Please don't come up with things "there are some reactors which can burn it". We don't have these reactors yet. They are in development, maybe there's a prototype somewhere, but nothing we can use. We need solutions that work right out of the box and right now. If not, we have to store the waste for a looooooooooong time and who pays for that? The tax payers. For a long time, maybe hundreds if not thousands of years ongoing from now, who knows. Please note that the 22 billion Euro from the energy providers are just for searching a place to store the waste, not the actual storage itself. edit: Just to note it, because some people might not know this. The decision to phase out the nuclear reactors was made by Merkel and made into law by her government. It's not something the Green party came up with one morning in 2022.
- kgabis 3y ago
  Nuclear was responsible for 30% of electricity generation in 1990, a bit more than 6%. And yes, you just store the waste in geologically stable rocks, it's not rocket science, we store other types of radioactive or toxic waste and it's not that controversial. I wouldn't mind having one nearby... oh wait, there is one nearby, and literally nobody cares. It's this radiophobic fearmongering that made nuclear overly regulated and unnecessarily expensive. We have a planet to save yet the biggest economy in the EU is barely making a dent in it's CO2 emissions.
  - martin_a 3y ago
    So, the Green party has been ruining nuclear energy (and the whole country!) since the 90s? What kind of comparison is this? Letting nuclear power phase out was decided in 2011, nuclear was already down to 18% then. What point are you trying to make?
    - kgabis 3y ago
      I don't care who's been running Germany, never said anything about greens, I don't know why you're so obsessed about it. I only wanted to correct your statements about nuclear not being a viable option.

by kgabis 3y ago

martin_a 3y ago

Nuclear energy made up only 6% of the total energy mix. I wonder why everyone is so obsessed with these 6%. Also please tell me, how, starting from tomorrow, we can ensure that we handle the waste products of nuclear power generation safely and easily. Please don't come up with things "there are some reactors which can burn it". We don't have these reactors yet. They are in development, maybe there's a prototype somewhere, but nothing we can use. We need solutions that work right out of the box and right now. If not, we have to store the waste for a looooooooooong time and who pays for that? The tax payers. For a long time, maybe hundreds if not thousands of years ongoing from now, who knows. Please note that the 22 billion Euro from the energy providers are just for searching a place to store the waste, not the actual storage itself. edit: Just to note it, because some people might not know this. The decision to phase out the nuclear reactors was made by Merkel and made into law by her government. It's not something the Green party came up with one morning in 2022.

kgabis 3y ago
Nuclear was responsible for 30% of electricity generation in 1990, a bit more than 6%. And yes, you just store the waste in geologically stable rocks, it's not rocket science, we store other types of radioactive or toxic waste and it's not that controversial. I wouldn't mind having one nearby... oh wait, there is one nearby, and literally nobody cares. It's this radiophobic fearmongering that made nuclear overly regulated and unnecessarily expensive. We have a planet to save yet the biggest economy in the EU is barely making a dent in it's CO2 emissions.
- martin_a 3y ago
  So, the Green party has been ruining nuclear energy (and the whole country!) since the 90s? What kind of comparison is this? Letting nuclear power phase out was decided in 2011, nuclear was already down to 18% then. What point are you trying to make?
  - kgabis 3y ago
    I don't care who's been running Germany, never said anything about greens, I don't know why you're so obsessed about it. I only wanted to correct your statements about nuclear not being a viable option.