German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed, meaning a longer-term net zero by a 2045 target is also in doubt, reports by government climate advisers and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) show.
Nothing in general. Well the build times are rediculous in Europe and planning right not to build nuclear soon is too late already for any agreed upon climate goal. But that’s another matter…
The problem is the brain-washed nuclear cult on social media briganding everything. In the last year on Reddit you couldn’t even post any report about any new opening of wind or solar power without it degenerating into always the same story: “bUt ReNeWaBlEs DoN’t WoRk! StOrAgE DoEs’Nt ExIsT! tHeY aRe A sCaM tO bUrN mOrE FoSsIl FuElS! gErMaNy KiLlEd ThEir NuClEaR To BuRn MoRe CoAl BeCaUsE ThEy ArE InSanE!!”
Mentioning the fact that Germany in reality shut down reactors not even contributing 5% of their electricity production that were scheduled for shutdown for 30 years and in a state you would expect with that plan and already more than replaced by renewables got you donwvoted into oblivion every single time.
Reality is uncomfortable for the idealist. But ultimate any sustainable future MUST include nuclear and everything you sarcastically dismissed with that childish spongebob typing is just the reality of our world society.
You may as well get upset about how we didn’t leave the “reality stans,” back on reddit.
In fact, I should turn this back on you, I’m upset about the coal-stans that apparently migrated over here from reddit. If there is any world where you want to claim to be “green,” coal CANNOT be any part of the conversation. If it is, you have failed and don’t’ get to discuss environmentalism anymore.
Except nobody is advocating coal. So what do you want to turn back on him exactly?
Just because you developed a hate boner for anyone who’s not on your nuclear train doesn’t mean they’re pro coal. If you need to put words in others people’s mouths to confirm yourself… you’re wrong.
With your reaction you just confirmed what he described.
If you aren’t pro-nuclear you are pro-coal, thats the reality. No one is replacing nuclear reactors with anything but coal. The development of wind and solar generation is going to happen regardless, but for every nuclear plant that Germany shut down, they opened, or re-opened a coal plant.
Saying “that’s the reality” doesn’t make it a reality. You can repeat it as often as you want, it makes you look like a self absorbed jerk - because it’s simply not true. Just because it’s a nice narrative to push for you not every opponent to nuclear energy is a proponent to coal. Quite the contrary I’d figure.
The single last coal plant started operation in 2020, and none has been “re-opened”. Some are kept in prolonged reserve mode until 2024 (half a year longer than originally planned), IF the Alarmstufe Gas stays in effect.
Maybe try with some verifiable facts and stop lying.
Now if you are against nuclear energy, it means you have to have a replacement in mind and all replacements for Nuclear Power Plants are fossil fuel based. There isn’t another option. Wind/Solar are great, there is no one accusing you of being against renewables. But renewables are NOT replacements for Nuclear or Fossil Fuel based power. So there is your choice. Pro-Nuclear or Pro-Fossil fuel.
I have one axiomatic argument I stand by, although I recognize both pros and cons.
We’ve missed our targets and deadlines and climate change is happening faster-than-expected. Infrastructure is being brutalized by weather extremes. I believe it is reasonable to assume that many regions will decomplexify as a result of the changing environment reducing the carrying capacity and energy economy. Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex technology we have - even the supply chains and maintenance are extremely complicated. When we currently plan for these installations, it is with the assumption that society will be carrying on as usual. They would appear much riskier if we had to take into account situations where resources and/or personnel may be unavailable. Those situations will be almost inevitable for some regions, but determining where and how stability will collapse is still impossible to predict.
Where there are other solutions available (including degrowth), I would first support those.
Well if you don’t support nuclear because its “too complex,” you de facto support coal, which will inevitably turn into “degrowth” as most of the world can’t support agriculture anymore, and so you will get to nod your head as 100’s of millions are “de-growthed” into starvation.
Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody’s interested in building them unless they’ve got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody’s interested in insuring them in full (unless it’s the government). Nobody’s interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.
Speaking about the safety record here’s what final storage looks like in Germany. That’s another eight billion Euros of cleanup costs right there. I’m not usually that crass but whoever ok’d fucking dumping fucking nuclear waste in a fucking salt mine (unsurprisingly, yes, there’s water incursions) deserves to be shot.
In a nutshell the sentiment in Germany is that the only people that can be trusted to not play it fast and loose with nuclear safety are the Greens, and the Greens rather don’t want to deal with it either so we have a decision.
If you see the environment as just another way to profit, and you assume that we can’t save the environment because it costs too much, you are just another shitty fossil fuel executive, but worse because at least the fossil fuel executives get paid for their short-term ideas, you are just supporting them and thereby standing by as hundreds of millions of people are condemned to death, hopefully including yourself, for literally nothing.
So, you’re going to spend, billions, to build a nuclear powerplant, that will decarbonise at a slower rate, never turn a profit, be an economic sinkhole megaproject, or, you could just build a solar panel or wind turbine in like, a year, where it’ll be functional and working. Profits allow you to reinvest into more projects. Losses, mean you’re putting endless amounts of money into less.
If you’re constantly pouring money into a loss-making industry, it means you’re not efficiently managing your resources to build more projects. Profits from renewables can be reinvested before a single plant can’t be constructed. And that nuclear plant, will never make enough profit to build another.
What the fuck is the point of “making a profit?” The world is burning because of profits. If all fossil fuel plants were taxed at 1,000,000 Million per ton of carbon emissions would you support nuclear then?
The point of making a profit, is so that you can re-invest and allow private industries into the market.
If I made you a loaf of bread, which took 15 mins, and you could sell it for $2 profit. You would be able to sell more pieces of bread correct?
If another person made you a loaf of bread, which took three days to complete, and you make a loss of $10 with each one sold, how many more pieces of bread are you willing to sell?
One feeds your population, the other has to be bailed out by the government, and everyone loses money and investment and time.
The pro-nuke argument is literally funded by the mining lobby and the fossil fuels industry. Which is why most of their resources are from lobby groups, YouTube videos, public books, and TED talks… Because they know it’s going to be ineffective, and they only need to convince the public. Much like how the whole hydrogen-powered cars narrative is going, or environmentally friendly fuels. It’s an expensive distraction.
See the RAB that the UK has for the HPC nuke plant build. Companies are allowed to make a profit even before the powerplant is completed. The government will handle insurance, and decommissioning. Which, happens over a century, at taxpayers expense, and it produces no energy. There’s also the storage of radioactive material. All of this, uses money and resources that could otherwise be used for constructing renewables (and the fossil fuels industry loves this plan, because every moneypit nuke plant that is constructed, less renewables are built, and fossils gets to remain in the game because they then become only just one of the underperformers, rather than all), decarbonising the grid (faster, see study), and on top of that, everybody makes money.
But don’t worry, renewables are also cheaper and more profitable than fossils in most applications as well, so they’ll lose out on future energy projects, besides, like in Germany’s case, being used as a backup.
It scares people into making them plan and pay for everything up front. If you did the same with literally any other fuel source it wouldn’t even get built. Coal would be DoA if they had the same limits on radioactive emissions as a nuclear plant.
But that’s the thing with nuclear. The upfront costs are massive, and literally irrecoverable. Can you name a single nuclear powerplant that has broken even? I can’t. Not unless, it’s one that the government has built and then handed over to private industry, for example. Reducing safety from nuclear powerplants is not viable long term. And that’s the only way to get them commercially viable.
It’s not about reducing safety, it’s about reducing regulations that are about the appearance of safety, it’s about not imposing decommissioning costs as part of construction.
The US Navy has been able to consistently and safely build and run reactors for 50 years. It’s basically just fear preventing that knowledge and experience from being used in the commercial sector.
The US Navy isn’t concerned about making their fleets commercially viable. Taxpayers expect to subsidise defence, and for the US, this is done at vast cost. They don’t expect to constantly be funding an expensive, loss-making powerplant. Not when alternatives are cheaper and more effective.
Shit I had hoped we could leave the nuclear stans over at reddit.
What’s wrong with nuclear?
Nothing in general. Well the build times are rediculous in Europe and planning right not to build nuclear soon is too late already for any agreed upon climate goal. But that’s another matter…
The problem is the brain-washed nuclear cult on social media briganding everything. In the last year on Reddit you couldn’t even post any report about any new opening of wind or solar power without it degenerating into always the same story: “bUt ReNeWaBlEs DoN’t WoRk! StOrAgE DoEs’Nt ExIsT! tHeY aRe A sCaM tO bUrN mOrE FoSsIl FuElS! gErMaNy KiLlEd ThEir NuClEaR To BuRn MoRe CoAl BeCaUsE ThEy ArE InSanE!!”
Mentioning the fact that Germany in reality shut down reactors not even contributing 5% of their electricity production that were scheduled for shutdown for 30 years and in a state you would expect with that plan and already more than replaced by renewables got you donwvoted into oblivion every single time.
Reality is uncomfortable for the idealist. But ultimate any sustainable future MUST include nuclear and everything you sarcastically dismissed with that childish spongebob typing is just the reality of our world society. You may as well get upset about how we didn’t leave the “reality stans,” back on reddit.
In fact, I should turn this back on you, I’m upset about the coal-stans that apparently migrated over here from reddit. If there is any world where you want to claim to be “green,” coal CANNOT be any part of the conversation. If it is, you have failed and don’t’ get to discuss environmentalism anymore.
Except nobody is advocating coal. So what do you want to turn back on him exactly?
Just because you developed a hate boner for anyone who’s not on your nuclear train doesn’t mean they’re pro coal. If you need to put words in others people’s mouths to confirm yourself… you’re wrong.
With your reaction you just confirmed what he described.
If you aren’t pro-nuclear you are pro-coal, thats the reality. No one is replacing nuclear reactors with anything but coal. The development of wind and solar generation is going to happen regardless, but for every nuclear plant that Germany shut down, they opened, or re-opened a coal plant.
Saying “that’s the reality” doesn’t make it a reality. You can repeat it as often as you want, it makes you look like a self absorbed jerk - because it’s simply not true. Just because it’s a nice narrative to push for you not every opponent to nuclear energy is a proponent to coal. Quite the contrary I’d figure.
The single last coal plant started operation in 2020, and none has been “re-opened”. Some are kept in prolonged reserve mode until 2024 (half a year longer than originally planned), IF the Alarmstufe Gas stays in effect.
Maybe try with some verifiable facts and stop lying.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow I guess “reactivating coal power plants” means something different in the original German, an must be semantically different then “re-opened.” Also note that natural gas is still a fossil fuel that has the dubious distinction of being “better” then coal, but infinitely worse then Nuclear.
Now if you are against nuclear energy, it means you have to have a replacement in mind and all replacements for Nuclear Power Plants are fossil fuel based. There isn’t another option. Wind/Solar are great, there is no one accusing you of being against renewables. But renewables are NOT replacements for Nuclear or Fossil Fuel based power. So there is your choice. Pro-Nuclear or Pro-Fossil fuel.
I have one axiomatic argument I stand by, although I recognize both pros and cons.
We’ve missed our targets and deadlines and climate change is happening faster-than-expected. Infrastructure is being brutalized by weather extremes. I believe it is reasonable to assume that many regions will decomplexify as a result of the changing environment reducing the carrying capacity and energy economy. Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex technology we have - even the supply chains and maintenance are extremely complicated. When we currently plan for these installations, it is with the assumption that society will be carrying on as usual. They would appear much riskier if we had to take into account situations where resources and/or personnel may be unavailable. Those situations will be almost inevitable for some regions, but determining where and how stability will collapse is still impossible to predict.
Where there are other solutions available (including degrowth), I would first support those.
Well if you don’t support nuclear because its “too complex,” you de facto support coal, which will inevitably turn into “degrowth” as most of the world can’t support agriculture anymore, and so you will get to nod your head as 100’s of millions are “de-growthed” into starvation.
Why would anyone who’s against nuclear automatically be pro coal? It’s not like the only options available to us are nuclear and coal.
That is the truth. Nuclear competes with fossil fuels, not wind or solar.
deleted by creator
Living up to your name.
Then why are you here? Your horrid omnicidal wish will be, by your own admission, inevitably granted. You have nothing to worry about.
deleted by creator
If you want degrowth, you want to see billions dead, because that is what degrowth means.
That’s not true. Choosing degrowth prevents deaths, kicking the can until nature forces degrowth leads to more deaths.
Is this one of those projection things driven by a guilty conscience?
Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody’s interested in building them unless they’ve got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody’s interested in insuring them in full (unless it’s the government). Nobody’s interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.
Speaking about the safety record here’s what final storage looks like in Germany. That’s another eight billion Euros of cleanup costs right there. I’m not usually that crass but whoever ok’d fucking dumping fucking nuclear waste in a fucking salt mine (unsurprisingly, yes, there’s water incursions) deserves to be shot.
In a nutshell the sentiment in Germany is that the only people that can be trusted to not play it fast and loose with nuclear safety are the Greens, and the Greens rather don’t want to deal with it either so we have a decision.
If you see the environment as just another way to profit, and you assume that we can’t save the environment because it costs too much, you are just another shitty fossil fuel executive, but worse because at least the fossil fuel executives get paid for their short-term ideas, you are just supporting them and thereby standing by as hundreds of millions of people are condemned to death, hopefully including yourself, for literally nothing.
So, you’re going to spend, billions, to build a nuclear powerplant, that will decarbonise at a slower rate, never turn a profit, be an economic sinkhole megaproject, or, you could just build a solar panel or wind turbine in like, a year, where it’ll be functional and working. Profits allow you to reinvest into more projects. Losses, mean you’re putting endless amounts of money into less.
Again if you are worried about “turning a profit” you don’t give a fuck about the environment and need to leave.
If you’re constantly pouring money into a loss-making industry, it means you’re not efficiently managing your resources to build more projects. Profits from renewables can be reinvested before a single plant can’t be constructed. And that nuclear plant, will never make enough profit to build another.
What the fuck is the point of “making a profit?” The world is burning because of profits. If all fossil fuel plants were taxed at 1,000,000 Million per ton of carbon emissions would you support nuclear then?
The point of making a profit, is so that you can re-invest and allow private industries into the market.
If I made you a loaf of bread, which took 15 mins, and you could sell it for $2 profit. You would be able to sell more pieces of bread correct?
If another person made you a loaf of bread, which took three days to complete, and you make a loss of $10 with each one sold, how many more pieces of bread are you willing to sell?
One feeds your population, the other has to be bailed out by the government, and everyone loses money and investment and time.
This is why China prioritises renewables, renewables are considered superior to nuclear when decarbonising the grid, and the best case scenario for nuclear, according to scientists in academia (as opposed to pro-nuke Youtube videos), requires nuclear to be a minor player in a majority renewables grid (and also be 25% cheaper). Unfortunately making nuclear cheaper, is not ideal.
The pro-nuke argument is literally funded by the mining lobby and the fossil fuels industry. Which is why most of their resources are from lobby groups, YouTube videos, public books, and TED talks… Because they know it’s going to be ineffective, and they only need to convince the public. Much like how the whole hydrogen-powered cars narrative is going, or environmentally friendly fuels. It’s an expensive distraction.
See the RAB that the UK has for the HPC nuke plant build. Companies are allowed to make a profit even before the powerplant is completed. The government will handle insurance, and decommissioning. Which, happens over a century, at taxpayers expense, and it produces no energy. There’s also the storage of radioactive material. All of this, uses money and resources that could otherwise be used for constructing renewables (and the fossil fuels industry loves this plan, because every moneypit nuke plant that is constructed, less renewables are built, and fossils gets to remain in the game because they then become only just one of the underperformers, rather than all), decarbonising the grid (faster, see study), and on top of that, everybody makes money.
But don’t worry, renewables are also cheaper and more profitable than fossils in most applications as well, so they’ll lose out on future energy projects, besides, like in Germany’s case, being used as a backup.
It scares people into making them plan and pay for everything up front. If you did the same with literally any other fuel source it wouldn’t even get built. Coal would be DoA if they had the same limits on radioactive emissions as a nuclear plant.
But that’s the thing with nuclear. The upfront costs are massive, and literally irrecoverable. Can you name a single nuclear powerplant that has broken even? I can’t. Not unless, it’s one that the government has built and then handed over to private industry, for example. Reducing safety from nuclear powerplants is not viable long term. And that’s the only way to get them commercially viable.
It’s not about reducing safety, it’s about reducing regulations that are about the appearance of safety, it’s about not imposing decommissioning costs as part of construction.
The US Navy has been able to consistently and safely build and run reactors for 50 years. It’s basically just fear preventing that knowledge and experience from being used in the commercial sector.
The US Navy isn’t concerned about making their fleets commercially viable. Taxpayers expect to subsidise defence, and for the US, this is done at vast cost. They don’t expect to constantly be funding an expensive, loss-making powerplant. Not when alternatives are cheaper and more effective.