229
Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
229 points (92.9% liked)
World News
39005 readers
930 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What do you mean? Don't you think transitioning to mostly renewables while coal and gas go down are good things?
Nuclear is affordable, efficient and proven. Abandoning it instead of promoting it was a dumb, conservative move that hurt everyone involved. Except Russian billionaires, of course.
Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.
They already had it and it was working just fine. They tore it down and went full coal and some gas. Now wind and solar are taking over slowly, but it's been years with more pollution and more radiation than any already working nuclear plant would have emmited.
That's true. The original plans for phasing out nuclear energy encompassed huge investments in renewable energy. The government Merkel II then decided to keep using nuclear and not invest in renewables, then decided a year later to leave nuclear again without investing in renewables. That little maneuver not only cost huge amounts of compensation for the big energy companies but also nuked (haha) the German wind and solar industry to the ground.
Or Germany could have just avoided the whole mess and kept the nuclear.
The old reactors could have been used until their end of life, yes. The effects are exaggerated though. Nobody was going to build new ones. Not even France who rely heavily on nuclear energy has new reactors.
this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry. In other countries with no nuclear infrastructure, renewables are definitely the better, cheaper, more scalable choice - but countries which invested big many decades ago are in a different position, and Germany's deliberate destruction of their nuclear capabilities has left them dependant on fossil fuels from an adversarial state - easily a worse situation than small amounts of carefully managed nuclear waste while renewables were scaled up.
Shhh... anti-nuclear don't want to hear this. They'd rather project, even though people are talking about how stupid closing down the current nuclear infrastructure and not advocating to build new ones!
I don't support building new nuclear power plants, but it's ridiculous to close down already existing ones given the threat of climate change. NPP should act more like stop gap until renewable energy can take over more effectively.
I answered a very similar comment a little further down:
https://feddit.de/comment/9599367
I'm not claiming it was smart to leave nuclear before coal. It wasn't. But it is what happened and it was decided two decades ago. Nuclear is done in Germany and there is no point discussing it further. New reactors were not going to happen either way.
Por que no los dos?
(en Alemans, por supuesto)
Nuclear is only expensive and slow if you're building reactors from 1960-s. Modern micro- and nano-reactors can be put in every yard in a matter of months if not weeks.
I don't understand, you think we can build miniature nuclear plants for every single house in weeks?
My man probably played too much Fallout.
More details here, with proof links, etc https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519
Where have they been built?
https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519
I wish you were right, but you are not. Those reactors don't exist.
Except they do exist. Almost. First SMRs were scheduled to be deployed right about, but the pandemic fucked it up. The project is back on track though.
MNR study was finished in 2019, right before the pandemic. Feasibility was also finished during the pandemic and the development grants were awarded.
Nano-reactors are still a future, sadly, but if the investments will keep up it won't be long.
It won't have been long for a long time now. It's not a feasible concept to rely on a maybe. We need massive amounts of clean energy now and the way to do that now is water, wind and solar. If these wonder reactors are one day reality that's great.
The problem is that instead of investing into dumb renewables, we should've invested in nuclear decades ago. Now we have to play catch up.
France is a good example. They invest billions in their nuclear power. Still, their infrastructure is old and they can't seem to build new reactors. It's a money sink while "dumb renewables" are the cheapest most spammable energy source we ever had.
That wasn't my question
The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.
All coal from the Earth has a radioactive component to it. Burning coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear reactor ever does. Fly ash from coal fired power plants contains 100 times more radiation than nuclear power plants emit.
The idiots on here apparently also think that burning coal somehow doesn’t create waste that will last for longer than humanity has existed.
Nobody brings up coal but nuclear stans and bots. You definitely put your favorite straw man to work.
Germany could have eliminated coal a decade or more ago. That's an important point to bring up.
I agree it's too late now for nuclear to make sense, but that was a lost decade of coal emissions.
It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.
You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.
There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.
The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That's the whole problem.
2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.
"Nuh uh!"
Okay whatever lol. Deny reality all you want. More nuclear = less coal, it's very simple math. Anyone not blinded by "scary nuclear!" can see it.
Nuclear just means massive ~~potential~~ radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.
Also, more importantly, there isn't even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets's just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.
You know what word I didn't see at all in your response? Coal. Funny about that.
Bummer, your straw man didn’t work.
Compared to renewables, nuclear creates pretty much zero waste. The whole story of nuclear energy created less waste than one year of waste from solar panels alone.
What is the toxicity and half life / storage requirements for each waste type?
Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space. Overall, it is much cheaper to safely dispose of the nuclear waste then waste from solar power.
Note: radiation is not toxicity.
Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot
I generally try to respect other peoples religion but yours is a threat to the ecosphere. I believe you know your statement is bullshit.
People opposed to nuclear know this already but why do you think that is?
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn't at the moment).
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including 'forever chemicals'.
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you're just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be "physical toxicity"?!
If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner (as in from smaller dose) from chemical poisoning than radiation damage (uranium is also chemically toxic). People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to greatly over exaggerate its dangers.
For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?
Since they don't have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt generated than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation.
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4aUODXeAM-k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Maybe, just maybe, you should have read the Wikipedia article you linked. Not only did I lift that sentence from there it also explains physical toxicity. Sometimes you should read past the headline.
( Skipping the rest of the BS and jumping to the grand finale.)
Oh, so you got your PHD from Youtube University^tm^ - I didn't know that! My bad, you win!
JK, I like to get my info from different sources including but not limited to actual professors of physics (e.g. Harald Lesch) and they don't agree with mister Youtube dude.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4aUODXeAM-k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Oh no, a professor of astrophysics disagrees. Oh the humanity.
If YouTube is too peasant for you, you can read peer reviewed articles:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.02865
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/84/8/2286/20752/Natural-fission-reactors-of-Oklo
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7804
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603
Finally we reached the stage of you throwing shit on the wall in the hope something sticks.
Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I'm sure their employer/customer was happy.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.
Safe? No, it isn't.
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
Assuming you did some research on this (who am I kidding though) you should have found at per each article you find that claims storage is safe you'll find at least 2 incidents disproving that. If you'll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you'll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
I could drown you with links & articles of better scientific provenience but since that would be pointless I'd like to point out another fact to consider that doesn't get discussed enough:
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years. That seems a lot and would buy us and a couple of future generations time. Until you factor in Germany and others stopping all efforts to implement renewables, emerging countries doing the same and also the rising demand for electricity which is estimated to drive up current nuclear energy consumption by 20. Suddenly that lengthy period of 230 years is gone..
Fission and fossile both rely on finite consumables. All energy providers have pollution associated with them. Out of these however only renewable get their energy from the sun which is good for another couple of billion years. So the only option is to go all in on renewables.
Yes, at the very least Germany should have started decades ago but Germans decided they'd like a conservative Government for most of the past 40 years.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.
Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don't want to start another long discussion.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don't bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.
No, it's just a couple of statistics. It's better than the other piece but that's a low bar.
Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn't bring anything to the table.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?
Straw man again, really?
I'm only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.
No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn't work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.
Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can't even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.
Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.
Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.
Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?
You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.
You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.
The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.
Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.
Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:
230/10=23; 230/20=11,5
Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.
I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.
Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.
Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?
What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.
Your argument fell apart, can't be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.