this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
271 points (100.0% liked)
World News
31453 readers
914 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, but nevertheless they're burning a lot more coal than they would be if they hadn't pointlessly shut down their nuclear plants.
"We were able to grow enough soybeans to replace half of the whale meat we were eating, but we can't replace the other half yet because even though we have plenty of lentils, we hate lentils and don't want to eat them anymore"
So you'd rather they instead got another round of fuel rods from the russians? Because afaik swapping out those fuel rods for american designs would not have worked without redesigns of the reactors (not feasible in the time available). Besides, the plants were scheduled to shut down for a while now, some of their safety certifications running out shortly after shutdown due to those plans. Renewing those certifications in time would have been a mammoth task better spent on more renewables.
There can be a discussion about the order of planned shutdowns here (coal before nuclear) but to argue the plants lifetime should have been emergency extended is pretty delusional. Such a thing was simply not possible given the constraints present.
The amount of astroturfing for the nuclear energy lobby is insane. Always the exact same talking points. Every. Single. Time. Anytime a post is made about a country switching to wind or solar energy, these nuclear bros bombard the thread saying the exact same shit. Must be a coincidence…
I don't work for anybody, and I don't know what list of talking points you think I'm repeating other than the specific assertion that Germany shouldn't have shut down its nuclear plants.
I could just as well accuse you of astroturfing for the coal power lobby.
But since you're accusing me of being a shill anyway: yes, nuclear power is clean and safe and our refusal to embrace it has cost us decades of progress in reducing carbon emissions + is continuing to do so now. The anti-nuclear lobby has a tremendous amount of blood on its hands and I'm not the least bit ashamed to be on the opposing side to them.
Astroturfing isn't just paid shills. It's also useful fools parroting the same talking points, which makes it appear to be a grassroots-led initiative. It's muddying the water, like framing the argument as renewables vs nukes instead of renewables vs oil/gas/coal as this article is talking about. Increasing solar and wind power is a good thing. Period. But every time there's a discussion about how a country is investing in wind and solar, you nuclear bros make it about nukes vs renewables. Fossil fuels have to go. I do not endorse or support the use of fossil fuels of any kind. But nuclear energy is not a real solution, and all you are doing is derailing the conversation, which was about increasing renewable energy, which again, IS OBJECTIVELY A GOOD THING. Building NPPs take way too long and are way too expensive to save us from catastrophic climate collapse. Climate collapse is already happening. Crying about NPPs being decommissioned 30 years ago literally helps no one. It is spilled milk. It is nothing but a distraction that will prevent or delay the transition away from fossil fuels TODAY.
The nuclear plants that Germany shutdown were at end of life, with fuel rods only available from sanctioned Russia. They could not be retrofitted with other fuel rods, because nuclear technology isn't flexible like that. These plants also had safety certs expiring, and certifying them with a new fuel rod "hack" would have been impossible.
In what way was it unreasonable for Germany to shut down EOL power plants that had no fuel source available?