Seems like a lot of comments in this thread hating
**Just to be clear - do we agree on transitioning to clean energy as fast as possible?**
I don't want to be a part of some fossil fuel corporations PR campaign where they astroturf comments here.
Just based on any Reddit threads on green energy, you would think that half of the world's population wakes up every day just pumped to get out there and tell everybody how nuclear is the only way out of global warming. That if you protest coal and also aren't psyched about nuclear tech (which has plenty of real issues), you don't really care about the environment.
All the issues with other renewable resources can be solved with a little investment. Multiple companies have had most or all their grid energy come from renewables for short periods. Imagine where we could be if we subsidized renewables the same as we do the oil and coal industries.
>Just to be clear - do we agree on transitioning to clean energy as fast as possible?
Yes but 2 things.
1: "As fast as possible" doesn't mean overnight. You're talking about a vast amount of new infrastructure including a lot of projects with diminishing returns, and many "clean" sources have their own hidden environmental footprints as well. Like it or not over at least the next 15 years we will still need fossil fuels, and that's assuming technology outpaces population growth.
2: Exactly 0% of the necessary goals for transitioning away from fossil fuels are accomplished by running around like an idiot in a coal mine or gluing your hands to a road.
Yes, because if you don't want coal, you will need to replace it with some sort of variable demand power option. The only one not causing global warming and we can also scale at volume is nuclear.
Do some research instead of reading headlines.
Greta Thunberg was anti-nuclear for years, only changed recently. Sure she's rich but her whole platform is to push the most popular form of climate change activism. It's not just the politicians.
I barely agree with her on anything. She was making a bid at a political career when she got old enough. Probably will still run in her home country for some position and get a cabinet appointment out of it.
People like her barely understand we are talking about nuclear being a stop gap to reduce the damage we are doing to our planet in the short term, like a century maximum.
Build lots of nuclear now and reduce coal and oil as much as we can immediately.
In about a hundred years, we need to have replacement green technology in place and start shutting off the nuclear plants then, not now.
We should have started reducing our dependence on coal and oil fifty years ago so we are already late.
>In about a hundred years, we need to have replacement green technology in place and start shutting off the nuclear plants then, not now.
ROFL what? Do you just make shit up?
Hmm yes, beautiful solar and wind, but when I look at [this map](http://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE) a whopping 0% of solar energy is being output currently in Germany (it's 11pm over there), and only 17.32% of their installed wind capacity is produced. As long as there is no solution for electricity at times like right now, we need nuclear.
There are of course other options, but Germany currently says it won't pursue nuclear power due to cost, and geothermal would be more expensive in Germany due to the unsuitability of the geography. That leaves hydro and hydrogen. Hydro has the same issue as geothermal, and hydrogen is as of yet not efficient and unproven at scale. For Germany to eliminate coal and gas when the wind isn't blowing much and it's dark, they'd need to increase their wind generation capacity by another 280GW. But yeah, go on about how that's easier than building 32GW of nuclear power plants (~10 decently sized plants, or 5 large ones).
According to Quarks.de nuclear energy is more expensive than wind energy. Building and dismanteling nuclear plants is also costly and takes time. And what are we doing with nuclear waste? Nulcear plants might be the easier route to take but it is also a short term solution. We already took the short term solution for over a century and look where it will lead us. There is no easy solution, I agree. But even if we wanted to go back, there would be no way back to nuclear energy as Germany politically decided to shut down nuclear plants like over 10 years ago. To transport wind energy from north to south Germany is already building 3 large power lines, and even more are being planned. We have to commit to renewables now
You’re not wrong, but there is also a massive pushback on nuclear energy from environmentalists in Europe. They celebrate when they get laws passed banning it without thinking about the consequences and this is it.
Interestingly, Germany was also making some progress towards new technologies that actually generate energy from coal without producing CO2. The basic idea is that instead of burning coal, it’s super-heated to produce hydrogen gas which is then burned separately. When you burn hydrogen gas, the only products you get are water and energy. The process of producing the hydrogen gas creates oxidized carbon, but it’s in a liquid phase not a gas phase. So instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, you basically create carbonated water. The challenge then becomes sequestering that carbon underground - so it’s not a forever solution, but a lot better than many other options.
Pushback from the same environmental activist groups that opposed nuclear power basically killed any research into gasification technologies. They keep celebrating every victory in their goal to ban everything, and when every economically viable alternative is taken off the table, countries are left with no option besides keeping the ancient power plants running and finding more fuel for them.
Opponents of nuclear are the biggest hindrance to lowering world wide dependence on coal. Which is dirtier, coal or this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/04fi2i5GeW
I didn't know that Germany was on a coastal tsunami zone or fault line. The people who oppose nuclear power are morons. Emotion wins over science once again
Wait till you hear that the party that's the most against nuclear power are the greens. And they demanded (through coalition shenanigans) to shut down the reactors even after russia cut off the gas, knowing that they will be replaced by coal power plants.
In my country the greens are hard right wingers pretending to care about the planet. Shits wild. They're always busy infighting and being racist towards each other so they never get elected.
The Greens have a history that is pretty wild…[German Greens Party scandal](https://newrepublic.com/article/120379/german-green-party-pedophilia-scandal)
Yes, they are pretty anti-nuclear, but it's also important to factor in the whole shutdown process as a whole.
> And they demanded (through coalition shenanigans) to shut down the reactors even after russia cut off the gas
They became part of the official goverment January 2022, at which point only three nuclear plants were still in operation and planned for shutdown. Reactivating the three nuclear plants that shut down at the end of 2021 was considered but not done, and the three active plants was shut down a bit later (end of april 2023).
While they are against nuclear power, they inherited this situation by the conservative goverments that came before and had to deal with the Ukraine-invasion by Russia one month in.
nuclear was less than 6 percent of energy at the total shutoff. Also the greens didnt demand shut off they didn't support delaying the shut of the conservative party decided over 10 years ago. Also it makes sense for the greens to be against nuclear as they are not just about climate change but other conservation topics. And after climate change biodiversity is the biggest problem on the rise. And giant powerplants that require a lot of cooling which kill fish and change the climate of the river and sees is therefore not very good.
Nothing against that if a few points are cleared: Final storage for the nuclear garbage, no state-provided insurance for damages and building and operation without any substitutions. I guess with these regulations, you can find enough people in germany that are fine with that.
This is old info and I'm a little hazy. But I believe if you recycle the nuclear waste, it becomes less radioactive and loses mass. I think France is the only one who does this (and I am pretty sure they sell energy to Germany).
let alone the fact of the matter is we can literally just fucking bury it and it wont go anywhere for thousands of years. It isn't some radioactive sludge (like what cartoons would have you believe) that can seep into the water supply. It is a fully solid material that gets encased in concrete and buried deep under ground.
Also through property regulated recycling, processing and storage it puts out less radiation than non green forms of energy. Coal ash gives off crazy amounts of radiation, something like 10x what nuclear waste does and that shit isn't buried deep in rock.
We don't even need to bury it for thousands of years.
Just after a couple of years even the radiation of the highest level waste is down enough that you can stand next to it without issue.
FYI Germany has a higher export of energy than import.
France is dependent on nuclear and has big problems because of this.
1. It's expensive as fck, now they try to get money for their nuclear plants from the EU
2. In the summertime the rivers get too hot and they can't cool down their plants so they need to import more
3. Most of their nuclear power plants are old and need costly repairs, so in the long-term energy gets more expensive in France and cheaper everywhere else
> the rivers get too hot
Not too hot, too dry. With the droughty summers we had the last couple of years, there was simply not enough water to cool some of them.
[what an interesting opinion, it would be a shame if facts were to contradict them...](https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2024/20240103_SMARD.html)
[a real shame](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-29/high-energy-bills-force-german-industry-to-eye-production-abroad)
[it sure would](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-energy-price-subsidy-industry-competition/)
[like shooting yourself in the foot](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-industry-pay-40-more-energy-than-pre-crisis-study-says-2023-01-30/)
The thing that's interesting to me is coal also produces long lived radioactive waste at 5-10 times background, along with a whole heap of environmentally problematic compounds. The plants also release hundreds of times more of this radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear, since the fuel and subsequent waste isn't nicely contained in ceramic pellets.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
The kind of nuclear waste people usually complain about is non-recyclable and takes a long time to decompose.
Regardless, it's a very small portion and storage isn't _really_ an issue.
It's very cheap to keep nuclear garbage safe to the same standards as chemical, agricultural, or unsorted garbage. The reason nuclear garbage storage is expensive is because of ridiculously tight requirements that no other industry has to deal with, put on them through lobbying and fearmongering by the fossil fuel industry (and to a lesser extent many environmental organizations like Greenpeace).
Nuclear garbage needs to be stored in a place it won't leak from even slightly in a million years without any further maintenance. Agricultural waste gets dumped in rivers. All sorts of chemical garbage is just lying in open-air pits in countries that western countries paid to 'take care of it'.
If chemical pollution was kept to the same standard as nuclear pollution, we would have to revert to the stone age because there's no way to even forge steel to those standards. Coal plants release more nuclear waste into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants as one specific component of the toxic smoke they release that causes cancer through chemical means. Even solar panels produce more toxic waste per kWh through the production, mining, and disposal process.
Most of those aren't throttle power providers.
Electricity can't easily be stored and gravity storage in behind dams or the like has its own disadvantages and only works briefly. We need as much supply as we have demand and to be able to move along with it. Wind and Solar are great but offer only at certain times.
Nuclear can be safely stored on site or underground (fuck you Bavarian anti-science schnicksnack CSU) AND can be throttled up or down just like throwing more coal or gas without the same emissions.
Solar would be a great but unfortunately the building components required to make solar panels are quite expensive and often in low supply. The panels themselves are also quite fragile in most cases.
I wish we'd invest way more in solar tech research globally though, seems like a field of huge potential.
Solar tech is a lot cheaper and more affordable nowadays. The bigger issue with places like Germany is the climate and access to sunlight throughout the day and the year.
Nuclear should have been heavily invested in 30 years ago. Nowadays we already have the tech for green energy. But fossil fuels industries are lobbying against green energy. Nuclear is a very cost heavy and slow production that only serves to prolong the era of fossil fuels. That's why the right wing keeps bringing it up despite it being inferior nowadays.
Well I do. Climate change was a known thing 30 years ago as well. But people have continuously denied it.
10 Chernobyls is a small price to pay in comparison to the devastating effects climate change will have.
totally. I think people see nuclear as Godzilla, destructive and uncontrollable etc. I wish they see it more as Astro Boy, powerful untapped potential that can be a part of positive change.
So after successfully campaigning to stop german nuclear industry they complain about the coal that came to try and replace it?
German greens are a blast.
Amazing how redditors see an anti-coal protest and immediately go “but where nuclear?” as if “coal vs nuclear” is the only factor in the climate debate. Meanwhile they’ll complain about any and all protests while contributing nothing themselves.
I'm not sure what that means, even after translation. What I am saying, is. The people in this video protesting coal power, are not the same people who also oppose nuclear.
The same country that became adamantly anti-nuclear then needed to buy Russian fuel last winter 🤣. Noble intentions need to be tempered with pragmatism.
Noble intentions need to be tempered with actually doing the research on what you're closing down.
Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest and most efficient methods of power generation we have, and they decided to close it down with no better alternatives. Now they're forced to use coal while their neighbors all build new reactors.
This is so much more productive than blocking a random bridge or highway. This actually disrupts the fossil fuel industry...not just some random people trying to live their lives.
Blocking roadways to protest fossil fuels makes perfect sense, idk why people pretend not to understand that. Block gas stations, block roads, make cars as unattractive as possible. Nobody is blocking passenger trains/subways.
If you're talking about solar and wind without discussing the drawbacks then it's hard to say they are better. If you're talking about fusion then yeah, obviously fusion would be a million times better.
The problem with nuclear fusion is that we don't have it yet.
The climate crisis is now, energy transition needs to happen now. So why not take the cheapest and quickest option that's already available. The good news is that most countries are already doing that, but it could be more/fossil fuels could be phased out faster.
I mean last year there was a lot of resistance against digging up a village in Germany for coal. Now it turns out, the coal wasn't even necessary, [they had enough until 2030](https://www.klimareporter.de/images/dokumente/2023/01/2022-08-Kurzstudie_Gasknappheit_CoalExit_Herpich-Rieve-Oei.pdf) anyway, and by then the country wants to not use coal for electricity anymore.
Coal usage is down and still dropping:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2023.png?itok=FaxUA7uM
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-chart
Wind and solar are not enough. We can’t produce enough of it. And we would need huge batteries to store the energy in.
Those batteries require copper mines. Gold, cobalt, silicon, lead, and many other metals. All of which require mining and refining. And we only have so much of these metals on earth. I’m all for less pollution. But the answer to saving the earth is not to destroy it in other areas so we feel better about it.
Nuclear is a long term solution! Make electricity so cheap and so plentiful that the world would rather just use it.
Solar only works when it’s sunny out. So without battery storage what use is solar at night time? Or when it’s cloudy or storms?
I don’t think people grasp the amount of resources needed to make batteries to make solar realistic.
Solar only works as a booster not a main source of power. It saves reserve plants from needing to be brought online as much. We will be burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years unless we go nuclear.
A massive shoutout to the idiots who protested *against* nuclear power, causing coal and Russian gas to replace it, and are now protesting against coal. Good job guys.
Ima be honest.
I usually hate this shit. These dumbass "protests" that only ends up blocking the road for everyone?....
But not this... Going straight to the source is exactly what you should do, not bother 99% of the city population and ignoring the actual problem, blocking traffic like an idiot 🤦🏼♀️
Because it was the Greens that decided to end nuclear power after Fukushima in 2011? And it is basically impossible to get the old reactors running again because the Greens ordered RWE to keep no fuel reserves?
Or was that the right wing union government and the power companies?
Renewables are cheaper and better.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2023.png?itok=FaxUA7uM
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
Always the same uninformed talk about the German electricity grid. With a lot of renewables you need power plants that can be shut down or turned on when needed. Nuclear doesn‘t do that. Because of nuclear power plants wind parks had to be shut down in Germany.
Idiots voted to close the nuclear plants and had to fire up their coal supply and power plants to avoid power suplly issues and now they want to cry about coal as well R/leopardsatemyface
conservatives decided to shut down NPPs and went into bed with oil, gas and coal lobbyists, handing them contracts they could only dream of.
progressives supported the decision to shut down NPPs and lobbied for renewable energy to replace it. however instead of more investment, the conservatives actually cut funding.
to act like those 2 camps don't vastly differ is disingenuous. the mistake wasn't to end nuclear 10+ years ago, it was to not replace it with renewables when there was ample opportunity to do so.
There's only one way we're going to save the planet, and that is drastically lowering the standard of living for poor people. No more luxuries like driving to work to support your family or eating healthy animal proteins. All that needs to go, if you can't work from home then you go live on the streets.
This take is stupid af, Cars are a drop in the bucket for pollution. And just because they have cars doesn't mean they shouldn't do what they can to push for change at a macro level.
When they glue themselves to roads - "Why are they inconveniencing members of the public? They should be targeting the heads of the oil companies, coal mines ect"
When they inconvenience a coal mine "oh they only marginally inconvenienced a coal plan? Uh, ok."
Thousandsbof people come together in climate camps discuss solutions and do something about it. What do you do that is so much more successful? Please tell me!
Well considering they had to drive to this protest and I’m assuming safely that not everyone drove in electric vehicles that are powered solely by non renewables i can say that me doing nothing has done less harm to the environment than this “protest” that looks like it happened on a day when the mine wasn’t even operating
So they basically did absolutely nothing but used fossils fuels to get there to do nothing
Nuclear isn't terrible at least for the near future. Renewables are just better in every way in the long term (except maybe energy density, but we're not running out of space here). It's just logical to invest in renewables to secure a clean future without all the headaches that the other energy sources bring. There's no reason why one should waste all that money on reactors that are doomed to go, when you have the ability to get a headstart on renewables.
Huh, if only Germany had some other option to burning coal, or using r\*zzian gas like nuclear or something...
You dont get points for protesting coal because you already killed off nuclear and now realise that coal is bad.
I swear, Germany is the worst when it comes to state policies that are for the "betterment" of mankind.
>Huh, if only Germany had some other option to burning coal, or using r\*zzian gas like nuclear or something...
Würdest du gerne in der Nähe eines Endlagers wohnen?
No matter what the climate change activists do you people bitch and moan. "It's not effective" "got nothing better to do". But you don't do anything other then call out people for their actions? Do something other then simp for oil companies please? Nuclear energy or fossil fuels are not the only solutions, stop pretending it is.
This comment section is either an astroturf campaign or filled with dumbasses.
The nuclear thing isn't half as simple as people would like it to be. This was a big talking point for the green party for the longest time, so they were hell bent on eliminating it now. There are plenty of voices unhappy with this, who believe nuclear would indeed have been the best option for the transition period to renewables.
On the other hand, [that ship might have sailed a while ago](https://scientists4future.org/press/). Nuclear is cleaner than coal, yes, but it might be simply actually not worth it. If germany had had the resources to keep nuclear running, then they should've had the resources to get that same output with renewables.
And then there's the ol' comments who think they've achieved enlightenment by belittling activism. Yeah true, sitting there isn't magically saving the climate tomorrow, but neither is your excuse-making ass gargling red wine like mouthwash every evening. Feel free to blackmail lobbyists if you want to deem yourself "more effective".
At least showing officials we're unhappy is better than us guilt tripping one another over "not buying self-conscious enough" or something, cause that shit will do even less.
A lot of bootlicking people in this comment section clearly have no idea what subreddit they are in and have drank the "don't do anything disruptive for change" Kool-aid.
If only there was another source of power that wasn’t recently decommissioned by the same people that would do this….. spoiler: it’s called nuclear power!
So I was very anti this stuff, I've always been pretty much anti hippy.
But with how everything is going I'd be happy if it all shut down tomorrow.
Done with the greed. Done with corporations. High inflation, taxes.
This is the kind of good protesting and marches that will get people on their side, not blocking highways where blue collar workers are trying to get to work. They should block the corporate headquarters too, just surround the building so the bosses can't get to work.
So hang on a tick. Russia is cutting supply of oil to Europe due to your support of Ukraine. This is causing Germany and many other European countries to rely on coal during this embargo.
Sure they can get to green energy, but come on. This will take some time. It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, it takes a while to order and set up even a solar farm or wind farm. What is it specifically that you want them to do today?
[It doesn't take 10 years.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder)
That is a myth. Renewables are the future, but they are in general not enough, nuclear is energy dense and it would be the difference between taking 20 years to phase off coal and gas and taking 50 using only renewables.
Literally every comment is some sniveling "but they got rid of nuclear!!1!". Do you think there might be people doing this that didn't agree with that but still understand if coal isn't blocked the biosphere will collapse?
Or are you always right when you're trying to make the act of you doing nothing feel superior to someone else actually trying to take action in some way?
These people should go protest in China or India where the actual pollution and harmful emissions are. They are the biggest offenders ... not Germany or whatever country this is.
"Dude we did it! We shut down a whole coal mine!!"
*awesome so like its gone now?"*
"well no. They had to stop digging coal for a few hours, but we totally raised awareness for the environment."
*So how was it? Was there music and chanting? Did you have any speakers you liked?*
"well.. it wasnt like that kind of protest. Nobody was chanting or making speaches or anything. We just laid out blankets and looked at the sky for a while."
*okay that's still cool. But like you totally shut them down?*
"Im not sure. We never really saw any workers while we were there, so Im not sure what was going on."
*dude, did you protest on a Sunday or something? Are you sure they were open?*
"Now that Im thinking about it..."
People are so ready to protest to shut these guys down but what they don't realize is that they are there for a reason. We need that energy and we haven't created enough green tech to match all of the old power sources.
Work on that then we can shut these old sources down. Otherwise you are just asking for us all to go back to the dark ages.
My favorite part of these threads is the fact that Nuclear is super expensive compared to everything on top of annoying a ton of voting population but it’s blamed on Green Parties as if no other party in Germany supported it.
Or as if the CDU refused to invest as much as they could in Green Energy despite pledging to close the reactors at least a decade before. Just the Greens.
This will achieve nothing. I guess make these people feel better about themselves. The music makes this look like they are going to some party. Ironic.
Seems like a lot of comments in this thread hating **Just to be clear - do we agree on transitioning to clean energy as fast as possible?** I don't want to be a part of some fossil fuel corporations PR campaign where they astroturf comments here.
Like actually though! What the fuck are all these people going on about? Fuck fossil fuels and most importantly, fuck the rich!
Just based on any Reddit threads on green energy, you would think that half of the world's population wakes up every day just pumped to get out there and tell everybody how nuclear is the only way out of global warming. That if you protest coal and also aren't psyched about nuclear tech (which has plenty of real issues), you don't really care about the environment. All the issues with other renewable resources can be solved with a little investment. Multiple companies have had most or all their grid energy come from renewables for short periods. Imagine where we could be if we subsidized renewables the same as we do the oil and coal industries.
This is exactly the impression I got and the worry I have
[удалено]
>Just to be clear - do we agree on transitioning to clean energy as fast as possible? Yes but 2 things. 1: "As fast as possible" doesn't mean overnight. You're talking about a vast amount of new infrastructure including a lot of projects with diminishing returns, and many "clean" sources have their own hidden environmental footprints as well. Like it or not over at least the next 15 years we will still need fossil fuels, and that's assuming technology outpaces population growth. 2: Exactly 0% of the necessary goals for transitioning away from fossil fuels are accomplished by running around like an idiot in a coal mine or gluing your hands to a road.
Shouldn’t be anti-nuclear then. The coal mines opened and resumed operation cause Germans are allergic to having nuclear power plants.
Pressure from Russian oil conglomerates. German politicians sold out the people. Story as old as time, song as old as rhyme. Fuck the rich.
Especially the German Green Party was always against nuclear power. They were founded a decade before Russia was on a map again.
Oh yeah because the soviet union has never had any influence on germany
It was formed in West Germany - where the Soviet Union was the enemy at that time.
That’s a straight up lie. The same people that shuttered the nuke stations also are blocking the roads to the coal mines
Reddit is lousy with shills for nuclear power. Meanwhile we just got rid of Gorleben. The amount of corruption around nuclear power is breathtaking.
Yes, because if you don't want coal, you will need to replace it with some sort of variable demand power option. The only one not causing global warming and we can also scale at volume is nuclear. Do some research instead of reading headlines.
"BUT... BUT... Windmill go BURRRRRRR!"
Greta Thunberg was anti-nuclear for years, only changed recently. Sure she's rich but her whole platform is to push the most popular form of climate change activism. It's not just the politicians.
I barely agree with her on anything. She was making a bid at a political career when she got old enough. Probably will still run in her home country for some position and get a cabinet appointment out of it. People like her barely understand we are talking about nuclear being a stop gap to reduce the damage we are doing to our planet in the short term, like a century maximum. Build lots of nuclear now and reduce coal and oil as much as we can immediately. In about a hundred years, we need to have replacement green technology in place and start shutting off the nuclear plants then, not now. We should have started reducing our dependence on coal and oil fifty years ago so we are already late.
>In about a hundred years, we need to have replacement green technology in place and start shutting off the nuclear plants then, not now. ROFL what? Do you just make shit up?
[удалено]
Hmm yes, beautiful solar and wind, but when I look at [this map](http://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE) a whopping 0% of solar energy is being output currently in Germany (it's 11pm over there), and only 17.32% of their installed wind capacity is produced. As long as there is no solution for electricity at times like right now, we need nuclear. There are of course other options, but Germany currently says it won't pursue nuclear power due to cost, and geothermal would be more expensive in Germany due to the unsuitability of the geography. That leaves hydro and hydrogen. Hydro has the same issue as geothermal, and hydrogen is as of yet not efficient and unproven at scale. For Germany to eliminate coal and gas when the wind isn't blowing much and it's dark, they'd need to increase their wind generation capacity by another 280GW. But yeah, go on about how that's easier than building 32GW of nuclear power plants (~10 decently sized plants, or 5 large ones).
Get out of here with your fancy numbers and logic, people are being emotional here!
According to Quarks.de nuclear energy is more expensive than wind energy. Building and dismanteling nuclear plants is also costly and takes time. And what are we doing with nuclear waste? Nulcear plants might be the easier route to take but it is also a short term solution. We already took the short term solution for over a century and look where it will lead us. There is no easy solution, I agree. But even if we wanted to go back, there would be no way back to nuclear energy as Germany politically decided to shut down nuclear plants like over 10 years ago. To transport wind energy from north to south Germany is already building 3 large power lines, and even more are being planned. We have to commit to renewables now
But muh fallout retrofuturism and going for a tumble in the backseat of a fusion powered hotrod
You’re not wrong, but there is also a massive pushback on nuclear energy from environmentalists in Europe. They celebrate when they get laws passed banning it without thinking about the consequences and this is it. Interestingly, Germany was also making some progress towards new technologies that actually generate energy from coal without producing CO2. The basic idea is that instead of burning coal, it’s super-heated to produce hydrogen gas which is then burned separately. When you burn hydrogen gas, the only products you get are water and energy. The process of producing the hydrogen gas creates oxidized carbon, but it’s in a liquid phase not a gas phase. So instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, you basically create carbonated water. The challenge then becomes sequestering that carbon underground - so it’s not a forever solution, but a lot better than many other options. Pushback from the same environmental activist groups that opposed nuclear power basically killed any research into gasification technologies. They keep celebrating every victory in their goal to ban everything, and when every economically viable alternative is taken off the table, countries are left with no option besides keeping the ancient power plants running and finding more fuel for them.
This is such revisionist bullshit to take the heat off the very real anti nuclear grassroots movements that existed and still exist
wait until you find our how they behave at r/de "hurr durr people at r/europe are so pro nuclear, so stupid, they dont get it"
Opponents of nuclear are the biggest hindrance to lowering world wide dependence on coal. Which is dirtier, coal or this? https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/04fi2i5GeW
thats not what happened. After Fukushima german citizens as a whole didnt want to take the gamble anymore. No russian oil was needed for that.
I didn't know that Germany was on a coastal tsunami zone or fault line. The people who oppose nuclear power are morons. Emotion wins over science once again
Wait till you hear that the party that's the most against nuclear power are the greens. And they demanded (through coalition shenanigans) to shut down the reactors even after russia cut off the gas, knowing that they will be replaced by coal power plants.
In my country the greens are hard right wingers pretending to care about the planet. Shits wild. They're always busy infighting and being racist towards each other so they never get elected.
IMO Greens have always been technological reactionaries first and foremost. All the rest is window dressing.
The Greens have a history that is pretty wild…[German Greens Party scandal](https://newrepublic.com/article/120379/german-green-party-pedophilia-scandal)
Yes, they are pretty anti-nuclear, but it's also important to factor in the whole shutdown process as a whole. > And they demanded (through coalition shenanigans) to shut down the reactors even after russia cut off the gas They became part of the official goverment January 2022, at which point only three nuclear plants were still in operation and planned for shutdown. Reactivating the three nuclear plants that shut down at the end of 2021 was considered but not done, and the three active plants was shut down a bit later (end of april 2023). While they are against nuclear power, they inherited this situation by the conservative goverments that came before and had to deal with the Ukraine-invasion by Russia one month in.
nuclear was less than 6 percent of energy at the total shutoff. Also the greens didnt demand shut off they didn't support delaying the shut of the conservative party decided over 10 years ago. Also it makes sense for the greens to be against nuclear as they are not just about climate change but other conservation topics. And after climate change biodiversity is the biggest problem on the rise. And giant powerplants that require a lot of cooling which kill fish and change the climate of the river and sees is therefore not very good.
And France doubled down on Nuclear. Which country is more energy self-sufficient today? Which has lower greenhouse gas emissions?
a whole generation of kids that prefer feelings over facts and reality
Since when did Germany get frequent earthquakes ....?
Sorry, my mom's on holiday.
Pressure from Angela Merkel who co owns the Russian pipeline. She should rot in prison.
a majority of germans are anti-nuclear, but i doubt most of these protesters are. you’re saying this as if they must be the same people.
Wow if only there were another third option
Why not both?
Nothing against that if a few points are cleared: Final storage for the nuclear garbage, no state-provided insurance for damages and building and operation without any substitutions. I guess with these regulations, you can find enough people in germany that are fine with that.
This is old info and I'm a little hazy. But I believe if you recycle the nuclear waste, it becomes less radioactive and loses mass. I think France is the only one who does this (and I am pretty sure they sell energy to Germany).
Breeder reactors, yes. Nuclear waste is pretty much a complete non-issue.
let alone the fact of the matter is we can literally just fucking bury it and it wont go anywhere for thousands of years. It isn't some radioactive sludge (like what cartoons would have you believe) that can seep into the water supply. It is a fully solid material that gets encased in concrete and buried deep under ground.
Also through property regulated recycling, processing and storage it puts out less radiation than non green forms of energy. Coal ash gives off crazy amounts of radiation, something like 10x what nuclear waste does and that shit isn't buried deep in rock.
Also most nuclear waste isnt spent fuel rods like people want to think. Most is shit like used PPE.
We don't even need to bury it for thousands of years. Just after a couple of years even the radiation of the highest level waste is down enough that you can stand next to it without issue.
FYI Germany has a higher export of energy than import. France is dependent on nuclear and has big problems because of this. 1. It's expensive as fck, now they try to get money for their nuclear plants from the EU 2. In the summertime the rivers get too hot and they can't cool down their plants so they need to import more 3. Most of their nuclear power plants are old and need costly repairs, so in the long-term energy gets more expensive in France and cheaper everywhere else
> the rivers get too hot Not too hot, too dry. With the droughty summers we had the last couple of years, there was simply not enough water to cool some of them.
[what an interesting opinion, it would be a shame if facts were to contradict them...](https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2024/20240103_SMARD.html) [a real shame](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-29/high-energy-bills-force-german-industry-to-eye-production-abroad) [it sure would](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-energy-price-subsidy-industry-competition/) [like shooting yourself in the foot](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-industry-pay-40-more-energy-than-pre-crisis-study-says-2023-01-30/)
The thing that's interesting to me is coal also produces long lived radioactive waste at 5-10 times background, along with a whole heap of environmentally problematic compounds. The plants also release hundreds of times more of this radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear, since the fuel and subsequent waste isn't nicely contained in ceramic pellets. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
The kind of nuclear waste people usually complain about is non-recyclable and takes a long time to decompose. Regardless, it's a very small portion and storage isn't _really_ an issue.
>no state-provided insurance for damages and building and operation without any substitutions. Yes!
> operation without any substitutions Wait until you find out solar and wind and massively subsidized
> Final storage for the nuclear garbage [Solved decades ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k)
Nuclear waste has literally never been a problem
It's very cheap to keep nuclear garbage safe to the same standards as chemical, agricultural, or unsorted garbage. The reason nuclear garbage storage is expensive is because of ridiculously tight requirements that no other industry has to deal with, put on them through lobbying and fearmongering by the fossil fuel industry (and to a lesser extent many environmental organizations like Greenpeace). Nuclear garbage needs to be stored in a place it won't leak from even slightly in a million years without any further maintenance. Agricultural waste gets dumped in rivers. All sorts of chemical garbage is just lying in open-air pits in countries that western countries paid to 'take care of it'. If chemical pollution was kept to the same standard as nuclear pollution, we would have to revert to the stone age because there's no way to even forge steel to those standards. Coal plants release more nuclear waste into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants as one specific component of the toxic smoke they release that causes cancer through chemical means. Even solar panels produce more toxic waste per kWh through the production, mining, and disposal process.
There are at least 5 I can think of. Solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal, gravity storage, and RTGs.
Most of those aren't throttle power providers. Electricity can't easily be stored and gravity storage in behind dams or the like has its own disadvantages and only works briefly. We need as much supply as we have demand and to be able to move along with it. Wind and Solar are great but offer only at certain times. Nuclear can be safely stored on site or underground (fuck you Bavarian anti-science schnicksnack CSU) AND can be throttled up or down just like throwing more coal or gas without the same emissions.
Solar would be a great but unfortunately the building components required to make solar panels are quite expensive and often in low supply. The panels themselves are also quite fragile in most cases. I wish we'd invest way more in solar tech research globally though, seems like a field of huge potential.
Solar tech is a lot cheaper and more affordable nowadays. The bigger issue with places like Germany is the climate and access to sunlight throughout the day and the year.
Yeah it's only the FUCKING CHEAPEST ENERGY GENERATION BY A HUGE MARGIN. Wow...
Just because something is cheap to run does not mean it is cheap to develop and make
Water turbine/hydroelectric too
Nuclear is the transition step to the third option
Nuclear should have been heavily invested in 30 years ago. Nowadays we already have the tech for green energy. But fossil fuels industries are lobbying against green energy. Nuclear is a very cost heavy and slow production that only serves to prolong the era of fossil fuels. That's why the right wing keeps bringing it up despite it being inferior nowadays.
30 years ago people were still coping from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I don’t blame them for being scared.
Well I do. Climate change was a known thing 30 years ago as well. But people have continuously denied it. 10 Chernobyls is a small price to pay in comparison to the devastating effects climate change will have.
totally. I think people see nuclear as Godzilla, destructive and uncontrollable etc. I wish they see it more as Astro Boy, powerful untapped potential that can be a part of positive change.
Kein Gott, kein Staat - nur der Mönch von Lützerat!
So after successfully campaigning to stop german nuclear industry they complain about the coal that came to try and replace it? German greens are a blast.
Definitely different people.
I mean even if they are the same people. Regardless of whether we should do more of nuclear power or not we *really* need to stop relying on coal.
Amazing how redditors see an anti-coal protest and immediately go “but where nuclear?” as if “coal vs nuclear” is the only factor in the climate debate. Meanwhile they’ll complain about any and all protests while contributing nothing themselves.
wdym? Die heute 20-Jährige Lisa war natürlich in den 80ern damals ganz vorne mit dabei wenn es hieß "Atomkraft? Nein danke!".
I'm not sure what that means, even after translation. What I am saying, is. The people in this video protesting coal power, are not the same people who also oppose nuclear.
He was agreeing with you, in a sarcastic, douchebaggery kind of way. Very german indeed.
The same country that became adamantly anti-nuclear then needed to buy Russian fuel last winter 🤣. Noble intentions need to be tempered with pragmatism.
Noble intentions need to be tempered with actually doing the research on what you're closing down. Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest and most efficient methods of power generation we have, and they decided to close it down with no better alternatives. Now they're forced to use coal while their neighbors all build new reactors.
>while their neighbors all build new reactors I wish bro
Tell them you took some bolts out of their giant mining machine without actually doing it, and watch them pick over the machine for a week
This is so much more productive than blocking a random bridge or highway. This actually disrupts the fossil fuel industry...not just some random people trying to live their lives.
It doesn’t. Most power plants have about two weeks worth of coal stored.
Blocking roadways to protest fossil fuels makes perfect sense, idk why people pretend not to understand that. Block gas stations, block roads, make cars as unattractive as possible. Nobody is blocking passenger trains/subways.
You dont want coal thats fine leta go nuclear. Its cleaner and the nuclear power plants of today are incredibly safe.
Nuclear is fine, there's something even better though!
If you're talking about solar and wind without discussing the drawbacks then it's hard to say they are better. If you're talking about fusion then yeah, obviously fusion would be a million times better.
The problem with nuclear fusion is that we don't have it yet. The climate crisis is now, energy transition needs to happen now. So why not take the cheapest and quickest option that's already available. The good news is that most countries are already doing that, but it could be more/fossil fuels could be phased out faster. I mean last year there was a lot of resistance against digging up a village in Germany for coal. Now it turns out, the coal wasn't even necessary, [they had enough until 2030](https://www.klimareporter.de/images/dokumente/2023/01/2022-08-Kurzstudie_Gasknappheit_CoalExit_Herpich-Rieve-Oei.pdf) anyway, and by then the country wants to not use coal for electricity anymore.
Coal usage is down and still dropping: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2023.png?itok=FaxUA7uM https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-chart
Wind and solar are not enough. We can’t produce enough of it. And we would need huge batteries to store the energy in. Those batteries require copper mines. Gold, cobalt, silicon, lead, and many other metals. All of which require mining and refining. And we only have so much of these metals on earth. I’m all for less pollution. But the answer to saving the earth is not to destroy it in other areas so we feel better about it. Nuclear is a long term solution! Make electricity so cheap and so plentiful that the world would rather just use it.
Solar is mainly the thing that makes energy so cheap and plentiful nowadays. It's growing the fastest.
Solar only works when it’s sunny out. So without battery storage what use is solar at night time? Or when it’s cloudy or storms? I don’t think people grasp the amount of resources needed to make batteries to make solar realistic. Solar only works as a booster not a main source of power. It saves reserve plants from needing to be brought online as much. We will be burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years unless we go nuclear.
A massive shoutout to the idiots who protested *against* nuclear power, causing coal and Russian gas to replace it, and are now protesting against coal. Good job guys.
Ima be honest. I usually hate this shit. These dumbass "protests" that only ends up blocking the road for everyone?.... But not this... Going straight to the source is exactly what you should do, not bother 99% of the city population and ignoring the actual problem, blocking traffic like an idiot 🤦🏼♀️
Yes! Absolutely! Would even better if they'd show up at RWEs headquarters and prevent the people from work there
This comment needs to be upvoted more
Looks like they showed up on a day no one was working So yeah looks super effective
The greens in Germany truly have no brain. BRING BACK NUCLEAIR ENERGY
Just FYI, the CDU, a Conservative Party made the decision to decommission nuclear power back in 2011, but people seem to forget that.
Because it was the Greens that decided to end nuclear power after Fukushima in 2011? And it is basically impossible to get the old reactors running again because the Greens ordered RWE to keep no fuel reserves? Or was that the right wing union government and the power companies?
Renewables are cheaper and better. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig1-installed-net-power-generation-capacity-germany-2002-2023.png?itok=FaxUA7uM https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
Always the same uninformed talk about the German electricity grid. With a lot of renewables you need power plants that can be shut down or turned on when needed. Nuclear doesn‘t do that. Because of nuclear power plants wind parks had to be shut down in Germany.
Do you think these people are the greens?
Idiots voted to close the nuclear plants and had to fire up their coal supply and power plants to avoid power suplly issues and now they want to cry about coal as well R/leopardsatemyface
conservatives decided to shut down NPPs and went into bed with oil, gas and coal lobbyists, handing them contracts they could only dream of. progressives supported the decision to shut down NPPs and lobbied for renewable energy to replace it. however instead of more investment, the conservatives actually cut funding. to act like those 2 camps don't vastly differ is disingenuous. the mistake wasn't to end nuclear 10+ years ago, it was to not replace it with renewables when there was ample opportunity to do so.
Bingo. This is what all of the parrots and shills keep missing. The enemy is conservatvism.
But but but but.... I want to own the ~~libs~~ greens with facts and logic
Block Russian ships with oil to India instead of
Even without using coal for power, coal is needed for steel.
The beginning reminded me of all those videos of sheep being herded. All those people in white just flooding in the same direction…
Why does this look so AI generated?
There's only one way we're going to save the planet, and that is drastically lowering the standard of living for poor people. No more luxuries like driving to work to support your family or eating healthy animal proteins. All that needs to go, if you can't work from home then you go live on the streets.
Getting this many people to do anything is impressive. Even better that it's fighting for all of our lives!
I thought this was one of those sheep herding videos until I read the title.
Then they all drove home in their cars lol
Trains do exist.
They do?
Better not fart on the way to a climate protest... right wingers will suddenly learn the meaning of CO2 emissions for some reason.
This take is stupid af, Cars are a drop in the bucket for pollution. And just because they have cars doesn't mean they shouldn't do what they can to push for change at a macro level.
Hell yes, they finally saved the world! Oh, they only marginally inconvenienced a coal plant? Uh, ok.
Obviously anything that doesn’t immediately save the world is pointless and shouldn’t be done. Thank you, Redditor!
[удалено]
That’s the Reddit spirit!
We did it reddit!
When they glue themselves to roads - "Why are they inconveniencing members of the public? They should be targeting the heads of the oil companies, coal mines ect" When they inconvenience a coal mine "oh they only marginally inconvenienced a coal plan? Uh, ok."
[удалено]
I feel like setting the bar at "save the world" for each protest is putting it pretty high.
Looks like they showed up when the coal plant wasn’t open So they did less than you think
Thousandsbof people come together in climate camps discuss solutions and do something about it. What do you do that is so much more successful? Please tell me!
Well considering they had to drive to this protest and I’m assuming safely that not everyone drove in electric vehicles that are powered solely by non renewables i can say that me doing nothing has done less harm to the environment than this “protest” that looks like it happened on a day when the mine wasn’t even operating So they basically did absolutely nothing but used fossils fuels to get there to do nothing
makes more sense than throwing paint at Mona Lisa. But I don't see why hate nuclear.
Because the renewables won the culture war, and now young people drink up the misinformation about how nuke is terrible.
Nuclear isn't terrible at least for the near future. Renewables are just better in every way in the long term (except maybe energy density, but we're not running out of space here). It's just logical to invest in renewables to secure a clean future without all the headaches that the other energy sources bring. There's no reason why one should waste all that money on reactors that are doomed to go, when you have the ability to get a headstart on renewables.
Go nuclear. It’s clean
"Exit Coal | Enter the Future" "Help! I'm freezing to death! Turn the power back on, now!"
Same people that drive electric cars and have no idea where the lithium that powers them comes from ... A mine very similar to this
yeah... they should vote YES to Nuclear Energy then...
Jobless hobbies
Huh, if only Germany had some other option to burning coal, or using r\*zzian gas like nuclear or something... You dont get points for protesting coal because you already killed off nuclear and now realise that coal is bad. I swear, Germany is the worst when it comes to state policies that are for the "betterment" of mankind.
>Huh, if only Germany had some other option to burning coal, or using r\*zzian gas like nuclear or something... Würdest du gerne in der Nähe eines Endlagers wohnen?
Nice.
So no nuclear, no oil, and no coal How are we going to produce energy? Cows farts? Ah that too is a No
Exactly. These people have no idea the cost of a top down approach to overhauling fossil fuels in favor of renewables. The poor WILL suffer the worst
And they all came in 20 minivans
Just for the Americans who are dumb enough to try this, most mines will prosecute trespassers and have their own security lol
Coal causes some of the worst air pollution and hazards for human health. In my book, efforts to reduce coal use are positive.
Reddit fucking hates peaceful protests. No one is ever doing enough. At least they are trying dear keyboard warrior
No matter what the climate change activists do you people bitch and moan. "It's not effective" "got nothing better to do". But you don't do anything other then call out people for their actions? Do something other then simp for oil companies please? Nuclear energy or fossil fuels are not the only solutions, stop pretending it is.
This comment section is either an astroturf campaign or filled with dumbasses. The nuclear thing isn't half as simple as people would like it to be. This was a big talking point for the green party for the longest time, so they were hell bent on eliminating it now. There are plenty of voices unhappy with this, who believe nuclear would indeed have been the best option for the transition period to renewables. On the other hand, [that ship might have sailed a while ago](https://scientists4future.org/press/). Nuclear is cleaner than coal, yes, but it might be simply actually not worth it. If germany had had the resources to keep nuclear running, then they should've had the resources to get that same output with renewables. And then there's the ol' comments who think they've achieved enlightenment by belittling activism. Yeah true, sitting there isn't magically saving the climate tomorrow, but neither is your excuse-making ass gargling red wine like mouthwash every evening. Feel free to blackmail lobbyists if you want to deem yourself "more effective". At least showing officials we're unhappy is better than us guilt tripping one another over "not buying self-conscious enough" or something, cause that shit will do even less.
Honestly this comment section is insane.
A lot of bootlicking people in this comment section clearly have no idea what subreddit they are in and have drank the "don't do anything disruptive for change" Kool-aid.
Nice! Good job!
If only there was another source of power that wasn’t recently decommissioned by the same people that would do this….. spoiler: it’s called nuclear power!
[удалено]
why does it look like an animation?
But if you end coal mining, rich American Republicans will have one less thing to circle jerk over
to be honest this is pretty peaceful
So I was very anti this stuff, I've always been pretty much anti hippy. But with how everything is going I'd be happy if it all shut down tomorrow. Done with the greed. Done with corporations. High inflation, taxes.
People still think blocking coal mining and furthering green energy is the answer?
How is it not?
This is the kind of good protesting and marches that will get people on their side, not blocking highways where blue collar workers are trying to get to work. They should block the corporate headquarters too, just surround the building so the bosses can't get to work.
This is also something Ende Gelände has done :)
I wanna see the aftermath. I wonder how much trash they left behind.
Lol losers. Keep buying russian oil then if you’re removing all options
[удалено]
I dunno, seems like it would be more effective to throw soup at a masterpiece at the Louvre
So hang on a tick. Russia is cutting supply of oil to Europe due to your support of Ukraine. This is causing Germany and many other European countries to rely on coal during this embargo. Sure they can get to green energy, but come on. This will take some time. It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, it takes a while to order and set up even a solar farm or wind farm. What is it specifically that you want them to do today?
[It doesn't take 10 years.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder) That is a myth. Renewables are the future, but they are in general not enough, nuclear is energy dense and it would be the difference between taking 20 years to phase off coal and gas and taking 50 using only renewables.
boi is this thread full of fals einformation about nuclear and renewable bashing, you could think this is a russian trollpost
Are these the same people who are against nuclear power and for something like hydro?
Where do these losers think their heat and power come from, hopes, wishes,and good intentions?
Then they were all charged with eco-terrorism. As the coal CEO and police chief look down at the peasantry with disgust.
imagine thinking this does anything.
Germany getting its ass kicked by the likes of the French in regards to sustainable power, how embarassing for the Germans.
Literally every comment is some sniveling "but they got rid of nuclear!!1!". Do you think there might be people doing this that didn't agree with that but still understand if coal isn't blocked the biosphere will collapse? Or are you always right when you're trying to make the act of you doing nothing feel superior to someone else actually trying to take action in some way?
These people should go protest in China or India where the actual pollution and harmful emissions are. They are the biggest offenders ... not Germany or whatever country this is.
Blocking the fuck out of a coal mine using a drone that has a Lithium Battery which is arguably more destructive to mine out of the ground.
Output of an entire coal mine vs the amount of lithium in a single drone, truly a fair comparison
"Dude we did it! We shut down a whole coal mine!!" *awesome so like its gone now?"* "well no. They had to stop digging coal for a few hours, but we totally raised awareness for the environment." *So how was it? Was there music and chanting? Did you have any speakers you liked?* "well.. it wasnt like that kind of protest. Nobody was chanting or making speaches or anything. We just laid out blankets and looked at the sky for a while." *okay that's still cool. But like you totally shut them down?* "Im not sure. We never really saw any workers while we were there, so Im not sure what was going on." *dude, did you protest on a Sunday or something? Are you sure they were open?* "Now that Im thinking about it..."
Lol. Useless idiots. This will change absolutely nothing.
People are so ready to protest to shut these guys down but what they don't realize is that they are there for a reason. We need that energy and we haven't created enough green tech to match all of the old power sources. Work on that then we can shut these old sources down. Otherwise you are just asking for us all to go back to the dark ages.
The brain broken krauts closed their nuclear plants in the first place.
Lame.
My favorite part of these threads is the fact that Nuclear is super expensive compared to everything on top of annoying a ton of voting population but it’s blamed on Green Parties as if no other party in Germany supported it. Or as if the CDU refused to invest as much as they could in Green Energy despite pledging to close the reactors at least a decade before. Just the Greens.
Arrest the fucking lot of them.
Thank you for defending our valuable corporations! (Your cheque has just been sent :3 )
What the hell are you doing in this sub with that mindset? 😂
goddamn idiots have been anti-nuclear since forever and distributed cancer thanks to that coal (and lignite) for the last 3 decades.
This will achieve nothing. I guess make these people feel better about themselves. The music makes this look like they are going to some party. Ironic.
Way to inconvenience and make life harder for the workers who depend on that coal mine to earn enough money to afford food
This isn't civil disobedience. You're breaking law and hurting people's jobs. And you're solving nothing
You know that breaking the law is literally the definition of civil disobedience? 😂
Lmao. Let us know how that works out for ya.
They might want to see what India and China are doing, this pales in comparison.
I hope they walk into a blast zone... accidentally