• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    185
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    German green party

    Nuclear plants:🤮

    Carbon plants (that actually produce more radiation that nuclear plants): 🥰

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have spurred on the solar/wind movement successfully though, albeit whilst using coal as a crutch. Even so, without the greens, alternative energy might never have been a discussion in a country like Germany which is positively obsessed with gas and cars

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Germany co2 emission for energy is 3 times that of France thanks to ecologists!

      • snaf@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is replacing nuclear with renewables does nothing to combat climate change. We need to be reducing fossil fuels. At the very least, they should have phased out coal before nuclear. While france was busy reducing its dependence on coal, Germany remains the largest producer of coal in Europe.

        • scratchee@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re certainly right that their handling of nuclear was inefficient for reducing carbon output.

          I’m pretty pro nuclear, but I don’t think that really takes away from their success in pushing renewables forward, they were a very early adopter of solar thanks to their very generous subsidies and probably helped fuel its growth at a faster rate, so regardless of their unfortunate paranoia around nuclear, they do deserve some praise. Perfect is the enemy of good, and given the speed the world has responded to climate change, Germanys mixed and painful transition was certainly not the worst.

    • avapa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The nuclear ship had sailed long before the Green Party became part of the current government. While I also think that nuclear power is a much better alternative to coal power plants it’s simply not feasible to revert Germany’s decision when wind and solar is as cheap as it is now.

      • Fjaeger@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not familiar with the German politics, but are you saying that Germany got rid of nuclear despite environmentalists?

        • zielgruppe@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          These decisions are mainly rooted in the peace movement of the 80s (fueled by the nuclear missiles in Germany installed by the US) and the direct experience of Tschernobyl. Its supported by the majority in the public.

          The current political decision was made by the more conversative government.

          • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think there is also an important cultural difference between Germany and France that led to different nuclear program.

            In the German political system there is strong regional and local governments and a weaker federal government that holds all that together.

            In the French political system there a very strong centralized government and regional or local government don’t have much power.

            Nuclear worked very well in France because of that. Nuclear energy need to be organized at a national level, German prefer energy that can be deployed locally or regionally.

      • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with solar is going to be scaling it to meet power demands. Never mind the fact that solar companies are cutting down trees to make way for solar fields.

        Nuclear energy and hopefully nuclear fusion will be the future

        • Yendor@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s too late to start new nuclear projects. The quickest Gen 3 reactor build in the US was 14 years. So starting now, you’re looking to finish near 2040. And for those 14 years of construction, you’re pumping huge amounts of CO2. Over its lifetime it will emit less CO2 than many other forms of power, but that’s too slow. We need to be reducing emissions now, not reducing emissions in the 2050s and beyond.

          • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s literally never too late to start them. It’s too late for them, alone, to reverse the damage to the climate change but make no mistake that until we’re dead and buried it’s not too late to make more. The KW/h per measurement of CO2 that nuclear plants produce is incomprehensible. It surpasses even renewable energy, that causes pollution from the broken panels and other e-waste. Fission has always been the answer and it needs to be pushed through no matter how fucking late it is so they can then be repurposed into fusion based when we make that advancement.

            • Yendor@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The life-cycle emissions from nuclear are better than PV, but it’s still not as good as wind or hydro. But the issue is that it’s massively front loaded - you have huge emissions during construction that are slowly undone over the decades of operation. But we can’t afford to ramp up emissions for the next 14+ years (both the emissions of building a nuclear plant, and the fact that the existing coal/gas plants will have to run for another 14 years). If you switch to renewables, you can reduce emissions this year, not in the 2050s.

              And there is absolutely no way you’re going to repurpose a fission plant into a fusion plant. They have basically nothing in common apart from the name.

              • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                This might be true for large reactors but I don’t think it will hold true with small modular reactors. We need the stability of nuclear too, as power demands overall rise.

                Renewables should definitely be a priority still, but nuclear shouldn’t be kicked out of the conversation.

          • Kage520@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What? Is there a good alternative? If we could magically make the world 100% renewable+nuclear in only 14 years that would be amazing I think. It would not solve everything, but sometimes it takes a bit to stop the bleeding before healing can start (carbon capture and planting trees during nuclear construction maybe?)

            Is there a faster way?

          • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not too late if we make small modular reactors a thing. Once you build one, every one after it will become cheaper and faster to build. Link 10-20 SMRs together and you could have a plant. Or just put 1 or 2 where they are most needed. SMRs are the future of nuclear, no doubt. But the current big reactors will mostly be around for a while, too.

          • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes. Regulatory overreach has made it 14 years to build nuclear plants. Almost all of which is interminable red tape. We should fix that, not pretend it’s a feature of the technology.

      • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like the the Greens, but they actually initiated the phase out the last time they ruled 20 years ago. One of their core ideologies was the opposition of nuclear power.

        But they were also for a coal phaseout. They aren’t responsible for how atomic plants got replaced and that the phaseout got changed into specific dates, they implemented a more flexible phaseout.

        A later government decided to slowly replace coal plants with gas plants and keep those coal plants in standby for emergencies for some time. Which is what triggered last year, as those standby plants fired up again when gas plants became unreliable.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would you oppose nuclear and renewable? Except if your an ecology fanatic that is.

    • Spendrill@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      See also: the “Atomkraft? Nein Danke” sticker that has a cartoon picture of the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system on it. Irony: it’s good for the blood dearie.