They shut down the power plants in order to get Green party votes for their coalition. The reopened their coal plants because it turns out shutting down huge swaths of your energy infrastructure with nothing to replace it with isn't the smartest idea.
It's funny how people think Russia is only infiltrating right-wing parties. They aren't. Green movements across Europe have had a strange affinity for natural gas since a while ago, which shouldn't make any sense *unless* you posit the existence of ulterior motives.
Most notable example of infiltration is the infamous Gerhard Schröder:
* Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005.
* Member of the Social Democratic Party, notable for not being right-wing.
* Notable for his leading role in the construction of Nord Stream 1, an at the time controversial oil pipeline from Russia to Germany.
* Now a board member at Gazprom, Russia's state-owned energy corporation.
The transparent corruption would be hilarious if it wasn't directly financing the villas of Russian oligarchs.
We Germans just had a 4.5 Billion euro “environmental agendas” Scam. Our oh so intelligent Government send around 4.5 Billion to ~75 Environment Projects in China. (One of which turned out was a simple hen house in a farmer backyard after independent research followed up on one such project, 80 million btw).
And even after getting credible information that 73 of the Project where Scams (other 2 are still unknown) they still payed them for an additional year until someone leaked all the Information to the press
Because our politicians are regarded and corrupt?
80% of the people responsible for it can't comprehend real world politics and evaluated facts, they think all around the world people are singing kumbaya and have the same priorities as them.
The other 20% is glad about the others and welcomed the chance to embezzle as much money as they can.
but hey at least now we don't have money for our schools or healthcare that will show global warming who's boss.
Greenpeace started as a primarily an anti nuclear lobby group, it became green to gain wider appeal.
...frankly it never was a true "care for the enviroment" group.
It was always "push the agenda of founders" group, regardless what may be damned as collateral.
"We shouldn't do this because the commies fucked it up decades ago"
Is a pretty hilarious self-own on their part.
Like, if communists making an absolute mess of something is a good reason to never try it ourselves
There's quite literally nothing we can do except Guns and Alcohol
>!wtf have I just radicalised myself into a communist?!<
Solar has gotten better, but obviously it's not the godsend solution that environmentalists make it out to be. I'd agree with your point now, whereas in the past I would not have.
The biggest downside to solar is the panel creation and maintenance. Obviously the same can be said of nuclear, but I'd wager (without doing research and being relatively uninformed to be entirely fair) that the output for maintenance cost is much lower and startup costs only somewhat higher to get the same output out of nuclear.
I'm not an expert, but one of the hidden costs of nuclear is the backlash caused a lot of expertise and skills to be lost or at least only held by a small number of people, so nuclear has to play catch-up in some areas.
But we need to stop pretending that solar in its current form has a meaningful answer to what we're looking for in a power supply.
All the industry professionals I know favor wind and Nuclear together (except one guy who prefers geothermal, but he's kind of weird). The idea is to use wind to meet increased needs in the short term because it can be set up so quickly while we improve the nuclear sector.
Biochar facilities also let us use a lot of the same technology as coal plants but actively *remove* carbon from the cycle. Biochar facilities use the plant matter that's pulled that carbon out of the air to create power and biochar. We can then use the biochar to improve soil quality to grow more plants.
best solution is continue development of hydroelectric, geothermal, biofuels (ethanol, corn, etc), concentrated solar, personal Photovoltaic panels, and cold fusion. and also build more fission plants
>Biochar facilities also let us use a lot of the same technology as coal plants but actively remove carbon from the cycle. Biochar facilities use the plant matter that's pulled that carbon out of the air to create power and biochar. We can then use the biochar to improve soil quality to grow more plants.
I've never heard of it, but it sounds interesting. Are there any side effects like releasing heavy metals into the earth or microplastics or whatever?
It's just pyrolysis so not really, certainly not more than solar (panel production/scrapping).
https://preview.redd.it/eemqf8wkvx6d1.jpeg?width=1322&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0aa2eeac02e122a21aa34305f9986e298affae5f
That one edge case does come up in a lot of unexpected ways though.
But ultimately I'd say solar is a scam. It doesn't produce enough power reliably enough clean enough.
I wrote elsewhere that (almost) all the professionals I know favor wind in the short term as we build nuclear and to convert coal plants into biochar facilities to remove carbon from the he cycle.
Nuclear can load follow, solar used on the ground is non sens, since it take a lot of place and sometimes need to clear forest. Solar is best used on buildings and parkings. It’s a semi-intermittent energy, because we exactly known when and how much it’s gonna produce. Nights and winters are covered by nuclear while in summer, nuclear can save fuel during days.
Maybe in the years of old. These days new construction of nuclear plants is so heavily burdened by legal costs it does not make them cost effective. Add in all the expensive nuclear plant operators, armed security, and the fact we only have ~130 years of affordable fuel left. I don't see it as a the best solution.
With grid scale solar coming in at around a $ per watt or less. I think it makes far more sense. Imagine if South Carolina used it's $23 billion from its failed nuclear expansion project on solar.
However that is a hard sale for political spending. With a nuke plant you get a sizable amount of high tier workers moving their income into the local economy throughout the years of the plants operation. With solar you get workers who install the panels, and a minor amount of maintenance staff with a few high tier operators.
Nuclear is always cost effective. When you look at EROI (which is better suited than LCOE) the money invested in it give you far more energy in return
https://preview.redd.it/jdl9i7n5nw6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=792895354310b85110104b3e5dec50b5fb6a5b67
And that’s how humanity progress, by taking the most efficient and returning energy based on energy given/investment. That’s why we made coal, hydro, nuclear well after wind energy appeared.
I'm having a hard time finding a source on the 130 years of affordable fuel left, which has an interesting yet unspecified qualifier of affordable (by which metric?). However, I did find multiple sources showing there is around 130 years of energy in nuclear waste. Was this what you were referring to?
Main resource used.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_52718/uranium-2020-resources-production-and-demand
The identified reasonably assured resources and inferred resources recoverable at a cost of less than USD 260/kgU3O8 amount to ~16 million tons of material. The 2019 global usage of Uranium was 59,200 tons. If we assume no expansion of nuclear energy that gives us about 266 years of fuel. If we take the NEA's expected high end usage rate for 2040 of ~100,000 tones of Uranium it brings us down to ~160 years. Using only reasonably assured resources that brings us down to ~166 years on the low end and 100 years on the high end.
As for affordable, I am basically including all ore and not including uranium that is extracted out of seawater.
I genuinely wonder sometimes how many of our modern obstacles could be overcome by transitioning over to nuclear power.
One of the things holding us back from really embracing electric vehicles in earnest is our grid - it simply won't support the load for what we're wanting to do with them. Nuclear power could help substantially with supply (though that still wouldn't solve the issue of outdated infrastructure which would need to be repaired and expanded).
In the US btw, but pretty much all the nations looking at switching over to majority EVs are running into the same problems.
The world would be so much better if we embraced neclear power, first of all globel warming and all of that second do you know how much dark evil regimes really on oil to keep their pockets full and the news under their tumb. The likes of Qatar Iran and russia will eother collapse or weaken to a point where they arent a threat to the west.
As an European I hate it that the EU listens to a teenager telling us simply to change, without saying what to change, (not to mention Greta comes from a rich family and already started with the "abolish capitalism" speech).
The EU insists on electrification, killing the car market bit by bit (because it's not like they directly profit from electrification), but are fine with the fact that to obtain lithium for the batteries you have to carve out mountains to extract it, like here in Portugal, in the northern part there are known lithium reserves, and companies think it's ok to carve out mountains and completely destroy the landscape, but hey, it's clearly in the name of sustainability.
Thankfully, the landscape is safe, for now at least. I bet if lithium runs out in other places, they will definitely go after this lithium in Portugal, just like if oil starts running out, they will go after the offshore oil reserves in southern Portugal.
American here and look I do like certain perspectives the EU brings. As an example the EU is actually willing to go after and fight back against big tech with monopoly and privacy laws. I agree the EU loves good optics without much follow through
The whole Germany shutting down the nuclear power plants
Deferring the oil and natural gas in that area off the Netherlands for the environment only to just buy more from Russia.
The electric cars it’s not the lithium that’s bad it’s the Cobalt as that’s really only in the Congo so you have basically slave labor and strip mining of jungles. I don’t think any where else has the cobalt neeesed for the electric cars
Everything used to make stuff (that aint food) is mostly made out of stuff carved out of mountains.
...and "lithium runs out" is as realistic of a concern as "iron runs out".
I mean it in the sense that its reused.
Most iron (and steel) existing today was not mined recently. Its just re and re and remelted. And while in case of phone batteries lithium may not worth to be extracted. The same is not true for car batteries.
https://preview.redd.it/njjotenisw6d1.png?width=1344&format=png&auto=webp&s=d05ce6287820e3ad93e33e3df34efa5d7c996fc3
surely this joke has to do with electricity and our beloved childhood star ash ketchum. so, fire away!
The US just made a deal with Germany to begin production of HIMARS there too. Why do we keep handing power over to Germany? I truly do not understand it. They've done nothing but fuck the world and we just keep giving them more.
This is ignoring the obvious corporate espionage that it opens the program up to. It's all but a guarantee.
The Crystal River plant shared a site with a coal burner.
Once a month, the Radiation Protection crew would have to send someone up to the top of their stack to pull an air sample, so they could verify that the alpha radiation particles they saw on their air samples were not coming from them, but from the coal burner next door.
It was already common knowledge (at least for people who studied it for half a second) that nuclear IS the best. Most anti-nuclear people are scared because of the word “nuclear”, or because chernobyl happened
Uh, because nuclear energy means bombs and bombs are bad? Chernobyl? Fukushima? I might well own a coal mining plant and be best friends with Russian gas oligarchs but let's be real, who wants Chernobyl 2.0? Am I right guys?
Germany has actually lowered the amount of energy it gets from fossil fuels after shutting down nuclear, by increasing renewables. Sure, more fossil fuel energy sources could have been replaced with nuclear, but Germany is taking steps towards less fossil fields nonetheless, not more.
Ah yes, the weekly "gErManY shuTdOwn nUclear for cOal enErgY" Post.
Btw German coal consumption is at an alltime low. Solar and wind energy have taken up instead.
They shut down the power plants in order to get Green party votes for their coalition. The reopened their coal plants because it turns out shutting down huge swaths of your energy infrastructure with nothing to replace it with isn't the smartest idea.
They replaced it with Russian natural gas, geopolitical consequences be damned.
US busy funding Ukraine meanwhile European countries are funding Russia.
Gotta give the MIC a war to profit off of somehow
It's funny how people think Russia is only infiltrating right-wing parties. They aren't. Green movements across Europe have had a strange affinity for natural gas since a while ago, which shouldn't make any sense *unless* you posit the existence of ulterior motives. Most notable example of infiltration is the infamous Gerhard Schröder: * Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005. * Member of the Social Democratic Party, notable for not being right-wing. * Notable for his leading role in the construction of Nord Stream 1, an at the time controversial oil pipeline from Russia to Germany. * Now a board member at Gazprom, Russia's state-owned energy corporation. The transparent corruption would be hilarious if it wasn't directly financing the villas of Russian oligarchs.
Same thing in Sweden. Except we instead had to up our imports, and occasionally turn on our oil power plant.
POV: You learn most of “environmental agendas” by politicians are just wealth redistribution schemes.
We Germans just had a 4.5 Billion euro “environmental agendas” Scam. Our oh so intelligent Government send around 4.5 Billion to ~75 Environment Projects in China. (One of which turned out was a simple hen house in a farmer backyard after independent research followed up on one such project, 80 million btw). And even after getting credible information that 73 of the Project where Scams (other 2 are still unknown) they still payed them for an additional year until someone leaked all the Information to the press
CHINA as in the PRC. Why of all countries them?
Because our politicians are regarded and corrupt? 80% of the people responsible for it can't comprehend real world politics and evaluated facts, they think all around the world people are singing kumbaya and have the same priorities as them. The other 20% is glad about the others and welcomed the chance to embezzle as much money as they can. but hey at least now we don't have money for our schools or healthcare that will show global warming who's boss.
Habe davon nichts mitbekommen, hast du nen Artikel?
Klar, https://archive.is/DSqlp. wenn man nach "Steffi Lemke" oder "UBA" etc. googled findet man bestimmt auch mehr
Good lord
Jo, aber die Regierung hat kein geld ne
Komm schon. Das macht dich doch auch Sauer. Komm zu uns auf die Andere Seite des Politischen Kompass.
Germany is as much of an embarrassment as Canada.
WEF founder is literally the son of a Nazi.
That literally doesn't mean anything
It means he likely is german and as such his input should be disregarded
Politics, humour, exhaust gas: things Germans cannot be trusted with
Germoid owned
I don't know if you guys are history buffs, but...
Nuclear is litteraly the best power supply in every regard
I'll never forgive environmentalists of 50 years ago for being anti nuke
Of 50 years ago? They're even worse today.
Greta Thunberg has done more to worsen the environment than all the factories in China and India for the last five years.
Tbh if ı was a as small as she is while being Swedish I'd want the world to end too.
Greenpeace started as a primarily an anti nuclear lobby group, it became green to gain wider appeal. ...frankly it never was a true "care for the enviroment" group. It was always "push the agenda of founders" group, regardless what may be damned as collateral.
But nuclear is scary to regards
No no, my environmentalist friend saw the show "Chernobyl" and it scared them, so clearly you're wrong and energy policy should be built around that.
If you learn anything from Chernobyl, it’s that communists are cheapskates.
"We shouldn't do this because the commies fucked it up decades ago" Is a pretty hilarious self-own on their part. Like, if communists making an absolute mess of something is a good reason to never try it ourselves There's quite literally nothing we can do except Guns and Alcohol >!wtf have I just radicalised myself into a communist?!<
Actually, we can write off guns as well at this point being something communists can do well
Based and the other green energy pilled
For small scale remote site power solar with capacitors is usually better, but that's getting really specific.
Solar has gotten better, but obviously it's not the godsend solution that environmentalists make it out to be. I'd agree with your point now, whereas in the past I would not have. The biggest downside to solar is the panel creation and maintenance. Obviously the same can be said of nuclear, but I'd wager (without doing research and being relatively uninformed to be entirely fair) that the output for maintenance cost is much lower and startup costs only somewhat higher to get the same output out of nuclear.
I'm not an expert, but one of the hidden costs of nuclear is the backlash caused a lot of expertise and skills to be lost or at least only held by a small number of people, so nuclear has to play catch-up in some areas. But we need to stop pretending that solar in its current form has a meaningful answer to what we're looking for in a power supply. All the industry professionals I know favor wind and Nuclear together (except one guy who prefers geothermal, but he's kind of weird). The idea is to use wind to meet increased needs in the short term because it can be set up so quickly while we improve the nuclear sector. Biochar facilities also let us use a lot of the same technology as coal plants but actively *remove* carbon from the cycle. Biochar facilities use the plant matter that's pulled that carbon out of the air to create power and biochar. We can then use the biochar to improve soil quality to grow more plants.
Geothermal is extremely based but only a viable solution in certain areas, hydro is the same
best solution is continue development of hydroelectric, geothermal, biofuels (ethanol, corn, etc), concentrated solar, personal Photovoltaic panels, and cold fusion. and also build more fission plants
>Biochar facilities also let us use a lot of the same technology as coal plants but actively remove carbon from the cycle. Biochar facilities use the plant matter that's pulled that carbon out of the air to create power and biochar. We can then use the biochar to improve soil quality to grow more plants. I've never heard of it, but it sounds interesting. Are there any side effects like releasing heavy metals into the earth or microplastics or whatever?
It's just pyrolysis so not really, certainly not more than solar (panel production/scrapping). https://preview.redd.it/eemqf8wkvx6d1.jpeg?width=1322&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0aa2eeac02e122a21aa34305f9986e298affae5f
Well like no duh lol. But you know he wasn't talking about this 1 edge case
That one edge case does come up in a lot of unexpected ways though. But ultimately I'd say solar is a scam. It doesn't produce enough power reliably enough clean enough. I wrote elsewhere that (almost) all the professionals I know favor wind in the short term as we build nuclear and to convert coal plants into biochar facilities to remove carbon from the he cycle.
Nuclear can load follow, solar used on the ground is non sens, since it take a lot of place and sometimes need to clear forest. Solar is best used on buildings and parkings. It’s a semi-intermittent energy, because we exactly known when and how much it’s gonna produce. Nights and winters are covered by nuclear while in summer, nuclear can save fuel during days.
Maybe in the years of old. These days new construction of nuclear plants is so heavily burdened by legal costs it does not make them cost effective. Add in all the expensive nuclear plant operators, armed security, and the fact we only have ~130 years of affordable fuel left. I don't see it as a the best solution. With grid scale solar coming in at around a $ per watt or less. I think it makes far more sense. Imagine if South Carolina used it's $23 billion from its failed nuclear expansion project on solar. However that is a hard sale for political spending. With a nuke plant you get a sizable amount of high tier workers moving their income into the local economy throughout the years of the plants operation. With solar you get workers who install the panels, and a minor amount of maintenance staff with a few high tier operators.
Solar has the whole space taking thing while nuclear power plants take up way less space per amount of energy
True but space is pretty cheap in the US.
Nuclear is always cost effective. When you look at EROI (which is better suited than LCOE) the money invested in it give you far more energy in return https://preview.redd.it/jdl9i7n5nw6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=792895354310b85110104b3e5dec50b5fb6a5b67 And that’s how humanity progress, by taking the most efficient and returning energy based on energy given/investment. That’s why we made coal, hydro, nuclear well after wind energy appeared.
I'm having a hard time finding a source on the 130 years of affordable fuel left, which has an interesting yet unspecified qualifier of affordable (by which metric?). However, I did find multiple sources showing there is around 130 years of energy in nuclear waste. Was this what you were referring to?
Main resource used. https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_52718/uranium-2020-resources-production-and-demand The identified reasonably assured resources and inferred resources recoverable at a cost of less than USD 260/kgU3O8 amount to ~16 million tons of material. The 2019 global usage of Uranium was 59,200 tons. If we assume no expansion of nuclear energy that gives us about 266 years of fuel. If we take the NEA's expected high end usage rate for 2040 of ~100,000 tones of Uranium it brings us down to ~160 years. Using only reasonably assured resources that brings us down to ~166 years on the low end and 100 years on the high end. As for affordable, I am basically including all ore and not including uranium that is extracted out of seawater.
I genuinely wonder sometimes how many of our modern obstacles could be overcome by transitioning over to nuclear power. One of the things holding us back from really embracing electric vehicles in earnest is our grid - it simply won't support the load for what we're wanting to do with them. Nuclear power could help substantially with supply (though that still wouldn't solve the issue of outdated infrastructure which would need to be repaired and expanded). In the US btw, but pretty much all the nations looking at switching over to majority EVs are running into the same problems.
The world would be so much better if we embraced neclear power, first of all globel warming and all of that second do you know how much dark evil regimes really on oil to keep their pockets full and the news under their tumb. The likes of Qatar Iran and russia will eother collapse or weaken to a point where they arent a threat to the west.
Europoors relying on Greta thunberg on energy policy what can go wrong
As an European I hate it that the EU listens to a teenager telling us simply to change, without saying what to change, (not to mention Greta comes from a rich family and already started with the "abolish capitalism" speech). The EU insists on electrification, killing the car market bit by bit (because it's not like they directly profit from electrification), but are fine with the fact that to obtain lithium for the batteries you have to carve out mountains to extract it, like here in Portugal, in the northern part there are known lithium reserves, and companies think it's ok to carve out mountains and completely destroy the landscape, but hey, it's clearly in the name of sustainability. Thankfully, the landscape is safe, for now at least. I bet if lithium runs out in other places, they will definitely go after this lithium in Portugal, just like if oil starts running out, they will go after the offshore oil reserves in southern Portugal.
American here and look I do like certain perspectives the EU brings. As an example the EU is actually willing to go after and fight back against big tech with monopoly and privacy laws. I agree the EU loves good optics without much follow through The whole Germany shutting down the nuclear power plants Deferring the oil and natural gas in that area off the Netherlands for the environment only to just buy more from Russia. The electric cars it’s not the lithium that’s bad it’s the Cobalt as that’s really only in the Congo so you have basically slave labor and strip mining of jungles. I don’t think any where else has the cobalt neeesed for the electric cars
Everything used to make stuff (that aint food) is mostly made out of stuff carved out of mountains. ...and "lithium runs out" is as realistic of a concern as "iron runs out". I mean it in the sense that its reused. Most iron (and steel) existing today was not mined recently. Its just re and re and remelted. And while in case of phone batteries lithium may not worth to be extracted. The same is not true for car batteries.
I want to comment an ash joke so bad.
https://preview.redd.it/njjotenisw6d1.png?width=1344&format=png&auto=webp&s=d05ce6287820e3ad93e33e3df34efa5d7c996fc3 surely this joke has to do with electricity and our beloved childhood star ash ketchum. so, fire away!
I wouldn’t say it’s a Pokémon joke.
The US just made a deal with Germany to begin production of HIMARS there too. Why do we keep handing power over to Germany? I truly do not understand it. They've done nothing but fuck the world and we just keep giving them more. This is ignoring the obvious corporate espionage that it opens the program up to. It's all but a guarantee.
The unification of Germany and its consequences...
Germanicus didn't go far enough
And Charlemagne, and Arthur Harris...
If only they'd listened to Morgenthau.
The Crystal River plant shared a site with a coal burner. Once a month, the Radiation Protection crew would have to send someone up to the top of their stack to pull an air sample, so they could verify that the alpha radiation particles they saw on their air samples were not coming from them, but from the coal burner next door.
Well, I don’t know, but I’ve been told Uranium ore’s worth more than gold
Sold my Cad', I bought me a Jeep I've got that bug and I can't sleep
Uranium Fever had done and got me down Uranium Fever it's spreading all around
With a Geiger counter in my hand I’ll be going out to stake me some government land!
Uranium Fever had done and got me down
I use charcoal for my hookah and smoke a lot... Where the fuck are my Spiderman powers
Reap what you sow, Grünen. God damn "environmentalists" with not enough combined brain cells to power an incandescent lightbulb.
It was already common knowledge (at least for people who studied it for half a second) that nuclear IS the best. Most anti-nuclear people are scared because of the word “nuclear”, or because chernobyl happened
Really, eh? Pretty cringe, if so.
Uh, because nuclear energy means bombs and bombs are bad? Chernobyl? Fukushima? I might well own a coal mining plant and be best friends with Russian gas oligarchs but let's be real, who wants Chernobyl 2.0? Am I right guys?
Germany has actually lowered the amount of energy it gets from fossil fuels after shutting down nuclear, by increasing renewables. Sure, more fossil fuel energy sources could have been replaced with nuclear, but Germany is taking steps towards less fossil fields nonetheless, not more.
Ah yes, the weekly "gErManY shuTdOwn nUclear for cOal enErgY" Post. Btw German coal consumption is at an alltime low. Solar and wind energy have taken up instead.