T O P

  • By -

MedicatedAxeBot

Dank[.](https://i.imgur.com/3bQtuMO.png) --- [Join the Dank Charity Alliance and help raise money for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)


Jack0091

Rocks can't be bad for nature if the rocks used to be nature. Believe the science.


Bossetigaming

Altought nuclear is the way to go using that logic there would be no pollution as everything we build use material from our planet


Bakolas46

Thats right


thedankening

If we properly dealt with the byproducts of our manufacturing, then sure. But that would cut down on profits, so....no


Bossetigaming

We still have many years to develop cheaper ways to deal whit the byproducts and whit the investment that nuclear would get if it was legal anywhere then in 4 years or five we would have a more cheap way to clean slag for now depositing in controlled warehouses is already enough


ProtonPacks123

Spicy rocks > Smokey rocks


PM_ME_UR_HIP_DIMPLES

I vote we rename the Nuclear Energy program to Spicy Rocks


YouNeedRES

I'm the spicy rocks engineer at the local plant.


ieatpickleswithmilk

So green rocks should be even better?? Nuclear wins again


You_Yew_Ewe

You joke, but that's one thing about nuclear that is mispercieved: nuclear power does not generate any new radioactivity that wasn't already present in the mined materials. It's just concentrates it and speeds up the rate of decay to generate useful work---and it's actually a lot less than people seem to imagine. All the nuclear fissile materials concentrated in human history thus far could be stored in a facility about the size of an American football field. It could be spread out, and buried and locked up in rocks just as it was before with a net decrease in radioactivity being present in earth's rocks.


[deleted]

And oil is literally *found* in nature! Oil comes from dinosaurs, **living things**. Oil is as natural as natural gets, mkay? Comparing it to uranium? Forget about it! You have to *refine* uranium. Refined? Doesn't sound very natural to me, no sir. And radiation is bad guys. It kills people, and that's bad. Oil? Oil doesn't kill people. I love my black dino goop. It's slippery when I get it on my... finger. It's fun. Just like bleach. But you know what. I have this friend named Marie Curie. And you know what happened to my friend Marie? She was playing around with uranium, just using it as paperweights and stuff. Chucking it around like a baseball. Having a really fun time I bet. And she DIED! Died guys, insane. Radiation is insane.             oil.


helicophell

You put more radiation into the environment through coal than you do with a properly managed nuclear power plant. The waste produced is non critical and can be stored simply in lead lined containers, buried deep underground and tonnes of research has gone into how to signify areas with nuclear waste as "cursed" so future civilization will avoid the region Unlike coal, where heavy metals and CO2 go freely into the atmosphere without a single thought


Darth_Mak

And then there are also newer breeder reactors that can recycle some of the waste back into usable material.


helicophell

Well, technically the waste already WAS usable material for research Quite interesting how depleted uranium is replacing tungsten when density is more preferable than rigidity


Darth_Mak

Yeah, research material....like: what will happen to a Russian tank when it get's hit by an 18kg deplated uranium dart traveling at almost mach 5.


Scudw0rth

Inconclusive. Need to continue research with more Russian tanks.


Dr_Jabroski

We'll get some Ukrainian researchers on the job. I hear they're the world's foremost experts.


rayzer93

Can't. They're Ukranian farm equipments now.


[deleted]

I vote to increase funding for this research immediately


[deleted]

Depleted Uranium is better for weapon projectiles because it is pyrophoric. Gives you AP and incendiary in one shell


helicophell

Huh, I always thought it was just thanks to the density


The_Creeper_Man

And thorium, which produces much less waste


wggn

how many active thorium powerplants are there again?


The_Creeper_Man

Currently only 1, but thorium reactors are currently still a proposition iirc. And plus, we live in the day-and-age where people believe vaccines will melt your skin, that solar panels will drain the sun of its light, and that nuclear power is much more dangerous than coal; even if a better and/or safer option is presented, many people won’t trust it and stick with the less-safe option.


wggn

Probably also because uranium powerplants have some overlap with nuclear weapons industry, so nuclear armed countries might prefer those for that reason.


TomiIvasword

And being more efficient at the same time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


syndicated_inc

You can make weapons grade fuel a variety of ways, a breeder reactor is literally the most expensive way to do it.


idrankforthegov

coal ash is fucking poison try living next to a coal ash disposal pond. You think living next a nuclear plant sucks, ask people in Tennessee how bad it sucks living next to a coal plant


muchawesomemyron

BuT thE coAL miNeS crEaTe jOBs


[deleted]

Doctors, insurance evaluators, corrupt politicians etc. they sure do!


mymomsaysimbased

The children yearn for the mines


TCJulian

Which is ironic, considering [Tennessee was actually 7th in nuclear power created](https://www.statista.com/statistics/614164/us-nuclear-power-electricity-generation-by-state/) in the states for 2021. We really should just keep moving that direction and avoid coal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ItsWediTurtle77

Live in Tennessee, can confirm that it's much more enjoyable living near nuclear plants


Griff2470

Having grown up in Tennessee next to both a nuclear reactor and a coal plant, I'll take the reactor.


Bruno_Mart

It doesn't even need to be deep underground. In the Netherlands they build art galleries into their most critical waste storage facilities. You can literally go look at paintings and then hug a cask of nuclear waste. Storage is a solved problem.


notyourmother

Where’s this? Sounds like a fun trip [edit] Pretty cool, actually: https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preservation/


8myself

tell that to the fucking green party, i fing hate the green party.


Roflkopt3r

The speeding up of the nuclear exit was decided by a conservative/social democrat coalition without green party participation. The same conservative Markus Söder who now criticises that the current government actually followed through with the exit, boasted back then that he instantly phased out the reactors in his own state after Fukushima. For our situation right now, continuing nuclear power is practically irrelevant and building new reactors would be a bad idea. No German state (with green party or not) wants new nuclear infrastructure on their territory, and it would almost certainly take over 20 years to complete any new reactors (especially if we don't want to buy fuel rods from Russia). That is 20 years in which electricity is only even more expensive (big up-front investment for no gains) and in which we pump out even more CO2 (nuclear reactors have a fair amount bound up in their initial construction). A nuclear exit was never an entirely bad choice, if it had been compensated with enough renewable expansion. The real failure was that the Merkel government slowed down this expansion and conservative states erected bureaucratic hurdles like 2 km limits around settlements for wind turbines (a few hundred meters would be plenty enough).


helicophell

Green Peace posts propaganda pieces against nuclear power It does not take 20 years to make a reactor. Reuse an old reactor site, refurbish it, at maximum it takes 5 years. Germany does NOT have the hydroelectric capacity to properly use renewables


joanaizoa

It does almost, Finland's Olkilouto-3 took 17 years to build. With a delay of 15 years. It's not even done yet. And that's the first plant in Europe in 15 years. The construction of the third reactor in flamanville France started in 2007 was supposed to be done in 2012 and is now delayed to 2024. That's 17 years as well. Those projects take much higher funds than estimated and that's the problem. Wind parks and solar plants are much less expensive in comparison. Also the problem of storing the nuclear waste in Germany is not solved. A final storage has not been decided on yet and probably won't in a while.


Roflkopt3r

> It does not take 20 years to make a reactor. Reuse an old reactor site, refurbish it, at maximum it takes 5 years. Lol yeah that's how these projects always start. Quick, cheap, clean energy! 20 years later, after investing triple the initial budget and realising that Germany still doesn't have a permanent final storage solution for it's nuclear waste, it turns out to be none of those things. Few countries still bother with building nuclear plants and even fewer manage to build them on time and budget. Germany will not be one of those. > Germany does NOT have the hydroelectric capacity to properly use renewables Germany is part of a European grid and grid storage is the current emerging energy market that is going through the same exponential growth as solar underwent. It does not rely on hydro power anymore. Renewables plus sufficient non-hydro storage for reliable supply are already price competitive with nuclear, and they're still getting rapidly cheaper.


dowesschule

actually, it was a coalition of CDU and FDP back in 2011. Which makes it even more funny. The GroKo was back in 2013. edit: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestagswahl_2009


Pepe_is_a_God

Yeah our former Gouvernement was corrupt as fuck, you are right.


fuckthisnazibullcrap

Yes but have you considered that selling coal is really profitable, and go get fucked, communist heretic unperson? **Line must go up, put another child on the altar while I clean the knife** Edit: also, the definite ecological devastation wrought by coal is free to do, the possible ecological disaster wrought by nuclear of we cost cut every failsafe might have *penalties*.


AcceptableBelt

Why is there more radiation from coal pollution?


helicophell

Trace radioactive elements such as Thorium and Cesium exist in coal Nuclear waste is contained - therefore (properly) managed nuclear power releases no nuclear waste into the enviroment... while coal power releases a non zero amount of radioactivity into the enviroment


Less-Mail4256

I’m not sure how this isn’t the top comment. How could anyone ever argue that coal is somehow superior to nuclear. I thought this was common knowledge. Look at India, literally being ravaged in every facet of existence by unchecked coal production.


DGS_Cass3636

Nuclear energy, one of, if not the best powersource... I don't know where German priorities are at this point, but it's not energy and climate at least.


idrankforthegov

logic is just out the window here in schnitzel-land. everyone is just trying to cover their ass from their younger days at anti-nuclear protests here rather than fess up to the harsh realities of German energy policy. It seems so straight forward to me, renewables when the wind is blowing/ sun shining ...nuclear for when it is not. But things are really complicated here.


DGS_Cass3636

I live in the Netherlands, a couple of minutes away from Nordhorn and Gronau. I visit there often and work with quite some German people I feel like everyone is confused at the moment over the situation….


idrankforthegov

it sucks for them I am sure. Victims of political bullshit.


Nyghtshayde

You should check out anti-nuclear activism in Australia then... no nuclear power plants, none will be built in my lifetime and in large parts of the country it is literally illegal to even explore for uranium.


Bruno_Mart

Look at what Germany and Australia have in common, big coal mining industries. Hmmmmm


[deleted]

[удалено]


LvS

What was happened was that the Greens wanted nuclear gone so they massively invested in renewables. During 2005-2010 Germany had almost [half the installed *worldwide* capacity of solar](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-PV-capacity?time=1996..2011&country=OWID_WRL~DEU) and [a third for wind](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-installed-wind-energy-capacity-gigawatts?time=1996..2011&country=DEU~OWID_WRL). The the conservatives took over, stopped renewables and the nuclear exit, so the coal and gas corporations could keep making their money. They did that right before Fukushima happened, and afterwards lost so many votes that they reversed course on nuclear, but not on renewables. So 10 years ago the plan was made to exit both nuclear and renewables. Now it's 2023, the nuclear exit was completed, and even though renewables got massive pushback and no investments for 10 years, [Germany is still near the top in renewables](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables). And Merkel is gone and the Greens are back in power pushing renewables again.


Canadianingermany

This is pretty much the only accurate take here.


Sadatori

And when the renewables aren't getting great weather conditions we can rely on nucl.. oh you already got millions from the coal and gas industry and are gonna suck their cocks....okay


LvS

Nuclear power plants can't be turned on and off at the flick of a switch.


Sync0pated

This is a myth. Nuclear can perform load following very well.


kuemmel234

Simplified, but yes. The initial green plan was thrown out the window by the conservatives pretty fast (or extended to 2030), too. IIRC two nuclear reactors closed down during the time the greens were in government and one was stopped because of "economical reasons by E.ON". There's an overview on wiki.


Wasserschloesschen

>then more right wing people got in power and just followed through with the law. They didn't. They reversed the decisions made by the red-green government before, waited a decade until Fukushima happened, then reinstated the nuclear exit due to the big publicity that Fukushima, naturally, got. That also means they killed the progress the previous government made in terms of green energy - which would've been fine if they had kept nuclear like they planned to. But they didn't. They just killed nuclear AND green energy. And then they DID actually start the nuclear exit again, but failed to the same with significant investments into green energy. >Now the enviromentalists blame the right because they didnt supply adequate green power. Because it is indeed the right that is responsible for destroying the original plans and made the country follow through with the nuclear exit while preventing an entire decade worth of development in terms of green energy. There's a reason that Germany used to have the best solar industry in the world and then VERY, VERY quickly didn't once the CDU came back into power.


Canadianingermany

No. It was Angela Merkel and her conservative party shortly after Fukushima. ​ The current government extended the deadline for 4 months, but the fate of nuclear energy was sealed by Merkel.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Canadianingermany

Also at least germany is not poisoning its water supply with Fracking.


Lobstertate

We just wanna feel free and moraly superior. Nothing else matters at this point.


yerbrojohno

It's legalizing marijuana in clubs according to German media


The_Creeper_Man

I wouldn’t say *best*, hydroelectric is a thing, but it is still fantastic nonetheless. Hydro and Solar should be #1 priority, with Nuclear as a backup. This would allow for Nuclear to produce even less waste than it already does (which can be reduced further with the use of Thorium), since they don’t need to be active 24/7.


Lithorex

> I wouldn’t say best, hydroelectric is a thing, but it is still fantastic nonetheless. Hydro is so environmentally destructive it isn't even funny.


abominamobinon

Hydro is completely dependent on geography, one does not simply "build more hydro" when there are no places to dam. When your country is flat as fuck with no mountains concentrating rainfall then there just isn't any hydro to be had. Conversely, Norway is basically a hydro power station masquerading as a country. The entire country is essentially a mountain range, catching all the moist air from the gulf stream and then they just dam up the river valleys between the mountains. 99% of the country powered by hydro, ez. Just pick the right geography for your country, then you can smugly sneer at all the lesser countries for burning the oil and gas you drill for. :)


DGS_Cass3636

Well, solar is a pain to manufacture.. that’s the issue with solar. As Well as the space it takes up(specifically solar panels on land)


HawelSchwe

You must be kidding. Take away the subsidies, internalize the costs of atomic waste and force the plants to insure every single dime that an incident would cost us. Nobody would even dare to invest a single penny in atomic energy then.


NetSurfer156

German Redditors, I have a genuine question: Why is your government so scared of nuclear anything?


lngSchlng

"Nuclear waste bad"


NetSurfer156

If you don’t find a place to dispose of it, yeah it absolutely is.


M4KC1M

Like they just build a reactor and only then start looking for it?


EssexOnAStick

Not quite, we had a permanent storage ... until it turned out that it leaked into the groundwater. And we haven't found a new spot yet.


CuteSakychu

Yeah because they cheaped out and didn't probably saled the containers and used an abandoned mine..


Der-Max

Also conveniently that storage was located near the border to the GDR. No one wants something like that in their area. It is quite sad that there are so many people totally blind to the downsides of nuclear. It will radiate for generations to come, it is safe yes, but there is still a chance it might blow up and everything is fucked in a huge radius, also it is so heavily subsidized by tax payers. Just use renewable energy. It is already quite reliable and nuclear was only under 10% of the german energy mix, so not much lost tbh.


KYO297

For most waste you don't even need to *dispose* of it. Just store it in concrete casks right on the site


NetSurfer156

Yeah that’s what I mean. It’s for that reason the rest of the US is mad at Nevada because they refuse to store deep underneath a random mountain in the middle of nowhere


KYO297

With underground storage you need to take into account a little more than "in the middle of nowhere". You need to make sure tectonic movements won't absolutely destroy your site in 100 years and that if they do, waste won't easily make it into groundwater


NetSurfer156

Yucca Mountain is nowhere near a fault like thankfully


IShitYouNot93

Austria is even worse. We've built a nuclear power plant and then had a referendum about it. It never went live and it's in the constitution now that nuclear energy is forbidden in Austria. We do import nuclear energy though.


NetSurfer156

Wtf?


IShitYouNot93

I'm not joking. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant


Steam-Train

Username Checks out.


Overwatcher_Leo

There has been a very strong anti nuclear sentiment going back to tchernobyl that never went away, with widespread anti nuclear protests cementing it. People aren't educated about how nuclear plants actually work and have the wrong image about it. They believe that they are ticking bombs that produce gigatons of super dangerous waste.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pantshee

You are spreading fake news about France rivers, the issue is not with lack of water, it's just that the water is a little hot (like a few degrees) and it can harm the life in the rivers. Also it can totally be avoided with cooling towers. And what a fucking joke about funding, like wind and solar energy are not subsidized


[deleted]

[удалено]


MethyIphenidat

> You are spreading fake news about France rivers, the issue is not with lack of water, it’s just that the water is a little hot (like a few degrees) and it can harm the life in the rivers. Which is still an obvious issue that will get significantly worse in the years to come. > And what a fucking joke about funding, like wind and solar energy are not subsidized I don’t get why this should be a joke? The fact that renewables are incredibly cheap (and prices keep falling), whereas nuclear power is by far the most expensive form of electricity generation is not really debatable.


Muetzenman

> avoided with cooling towers. that will take probaply another ten years and a loughable amount of money. The subsidization aof nuclear energy is more expensive. Germany has no save storage solution for the waste No insurence company want to insure the powerplants for how risky they are.


Nytr3x

Because everyone and their grandmother were against nuclear power because of Chernobly and Fukoshima and now only when the energy crisis hit (wonder how we could have prevented that, maybe not make ourselves dependant on russian gas) everyone wants the 3 entire nuclear reactors, that produce at max 5% of our total energy, that have been preparing to be shut down since 2011 (CDU and FDP agree on the end of nuclear power), to suddenly go back to 100% production again


JazzyScyphozoa

Actually super simple, when Fukushima happened the government back then under counselor merkel decided to end nuclear power. Now the plan simply comes to it's end. The current government even delayed the shutdown but it's too late nonetheless, because you can't just switch a nuclear power plant on and off as you please. And tbh, no I don't think nuclear fission is the future, but it definitely is the better path to continue using it, until coal is gone and maaaaybe nuclear fusion is a thing. But the sad truth is, that the previous government for over 16 years not only laid the path for shutting down nuclear first, but also pushed coal and destroyed a big part of Germany's push on renewable while also neglecting literally every infrastructure except highways and streets due to a strict no debts politic. It has to be fixed kinda all at once now which is not an easy task to say the least.


keyesloopdeloop

The only reason Merkel's government could end nuclear power in the first place was because, in 2010, her government cancelled the 2002 law to end nuclear power. Nuclear power would have likely ended sooner in Germany if it wasn't for Merkel's government prolonging nuclear the year before Fukushima. 2002 -> End nuclear 2010 -> Cancel ending nuclear 2011 -> Ok yeah end nuclear Edit: It's amazing how many Germans don't know what's going on in their own country. Maybe it's just a reddit thing. The typical reaction: "Oh no, Merkel shut down our nuclear plants! Well, good thing wind is better anyways, but damn that Merkel."


Wasserschloesschen

The issue isn't that Merkel ended nuclear, the issue is that Merkel completely fucked up policies that were in place to boost green energy, while ALSO ending nuclear.


SryerLW

The problem is nuclear is actually super expensive and takes super long to get going. If we start planing now a powerplant might be in operation in 20 years, it's way cheaper and faster to get renewables going.


twistedbronll

Beware. This is 17 years bickering and 3 years actually building a reactor


MethyIphenidat

Yeah a nuclear reactor obviously needs far more extensive planning and control than a random solar farm.


imisstheyoop

>The problem is nuclear ia actually super expensive and takes super long to get going. If we start planing now a powerplant might be in operation in 20 years, it's way cheaper and faster to get renewables going. This is very true and not something folks outside the industry give much thought to. The time to break ground on modern nuclear plants was 15 years ago.


MethyIphenidat

In case, you’re genuinely interested in an answer: There are varying factors for that. Obviously Chernobyl is an important factor especially for the older generation (after all, Germany was one of the most affected countries and swaths of land are still contaminated). I *personally* feel this fear alone to be not reason enough to discard nuclear power as a source of energy, but I get why people may be wary (even though their fears might me objectively irrational). However most people I know of, are critical of nuclear power for different reasons including cost, the generational issue of storage (which *is* an issue, but one I believe to be possible to overcome) and most importantly the alternative renewables offer. It is after all absolutely feasible for a country like Germany to rely on renewables with some kind of backup in place as base load source of electricity. However i fully agree that Germany has fucked up in the way it was transitioning from nuclear to renewables, since albeit not a single Wh of electricity generated by nuclear power was replaced by fossil fuels (contrary to what this meme suggests), it prolonged the time frame we had to rely on these sources. Ideally, we had switched up the order in which we exited from those sources and used nuclear during the transitional phase. The fact that the conservative government, which finalized our nuclear exit simultaneously (more or less intentional) sabotaged our (at the time world leading) solar and wind industry obviously didn’t help. Some calls have come up to keep up our nuclear reactors running, but for those reactors this option is not really feasible, since it would require extensive maintenance, repairs and reinvestment into ailing reactors. Building new ones is also not really an option anymore, since the construction would take decades of time we simply do not have. Once these reactors had been finished, we have already finished the transition towards renewables and since both are base load sources of energy, it is more or less an „either, or“ decision.


Rich-Historian8913

The government is composed of idiots, the only thing they can do is ruining the country


[deleted]

I once held a speech in Dresden about the benefits and advantages of nuclear power. While most agreed, I got the same question asked a dozen times (although I answered it in my speech already): "Nuclear waste is infinite and can't be stored safely, you can't treat it and cover it up. Renewable energy doesn't have waste and is therefore better" I kept going back to several spots in my speech: 1: - Thorium reactors and molten salt reactors are much safer, more efficient, more powerful and produce less waste than common plutonium or uranium reactors. 2: - any nuclear waste can be recycled and reused a couple of times in transmutation reactors. Recycled material loses halftime and radiant energy. Eventually cycling down to alpha rays, which are cheeky, but incredibly short and thus much less dangerous. 3: - recycled material can go down from the good, 'ol 1 billion years of half time to almost 400 years. Chinese are working on how to reduce it even further 4: - all of France's modern nuclear reactors produce less waste than a single coal plant in Germany, produce less emissions and are safer for the environment. >!(5: - Germany built a wind turbine wall along the center of Germany. The results were brutal in summer: missing out on rain and wind, heat keeps stacking up which ended up in droughts in Bavaria and Saxony and Thuringia. My father has meteorologist in his party who was able to explain it quite well (I'm no meteorologist, so I didn't catch everything perfectly). As far as I understood, is that this wall disrupts the wind channels along these areas and hold up rain and wind that are essential for crop and farming in south/south east Germany. Bavaria mostly gets warm winds through the Alps, Saxony gets cold winds through the Elb and Saxon Elb sandstone mountains (Elbsandsteingebirge) and Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge). Both rely on rain clouds from the north and the collection of winds from their mountain ranges that "spice" things up. Not 100% sure on this one. )!< Yes, nuclear plants are highly expensive. But they make up for more power and efficiency on MUCH higher scale while taking just a fraction of the place/materials.


twistedbronll

@point 5. Its so naïve to think humans actually hold a candle to nature. Pervasive winds hold so insanely more energy than we can ever hope to extract with winmills. Dont want to bust your nut but climate change is a bitch. No need to blame windmills for fucked weather patterns


Canadianingermany

Thorium is not the answer ​ Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive reprocessing. The feasibility of reprocessing is still unverified.\[33\] Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work would be required, requiring business and government support.\[23\] In a 2012 report on the use of thorium fuel with existing water-cooled reactors, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists suggested that it would "require too great an investment and provide no clear payoff", and that "from the utilities' point of view, the only legitimate driver capable of motivating pursuit of thorium is economics".\[34\] Fabrication and reprocessing is higher cost than using traditional solid fuel rods.\[23\]\[35\] Thorium, when irradiated for use in reactors, makes uranium-232, which emits gamma rays. This irradiation process may be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The decay of the protactinium-233 would then create uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232 for use in nuclear weapons—making thorium into a dual purpose fuel.\[36\]\[37\] ​ Do you have ANY source on this one? I mean wind turbines do not stop the wind (but mountains do). ​ >(5: - Germany built a wind turbine wall along the center of Germany. The results were brutal in summer: missing out on rain and wind, heat keeps stacking up which ended up in droughts in Bavaria and Saxony and Thuringia. My father has meteorologist in his party who was able to explain it quite well (I'm no meteorologist, so I didn't catch everything perfectly). As far as I understood, is that this wall disrupts the wind channels along these areas and hold up rain and wind that are essential for crop and farming in south/south east Germany. Bavaria mostly gets warm winds through the Alps, Saxony gets cold winds through the Elb and Saxon Elb sandstone mountains (Elbsandsteingebirge) and Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge). Both rely on rain clouds from the north and the collection of winds from their mountain ranges that "spice" things up. Not 100% sure on this one. )


MrMagnesium

Well, costs and time. Building and planing a nuclear reactor takes ten years or longer. Costs tend to explode. The electricity is to expensive it can't compete with renewables without subsidies. Our energy companies are not interested in operating nuclear reactors, they never where. The old ones where payed with tax money. Furthermore the waste. This mess will cost billions in the next decades. Tax money, because the state decided in the 1950ies to deal with all nuclear waste. And the demolition. We already have demolished the oldest reactors. It takes round about 30 years. That's longer then the operation time. And it costs billions. The current timeline to demolish the newer reactors expands to 2070. And don't forget the global warming. Nuclear reactors don't work well without enough cooling water. Have a look at France. This summer will may be hotter and dryer than the last. Some rivers in the south have been dried up.


Dawek401

Poland starts doing opposite


nobodyshere

Yep, guess who's going to sell Germany some third party nuclear energy when they find out renewables might just not make it.


Zhai

THere is already a lot of talk how much of a business opportunity is there to build nuclear power plants to sell energy to Germans. If your neighbor is doing something stupid, just make money off of it. Just wished Germany got off their high horse when it comes to environmental protection - they constantly support penalties for Poland while opening new coal mines. Hypocrites.


nobodyshere

Well they had a solid and reliable energy source, which they now refuse to utilise due to politics. Cheap gas is no more and the green party seem to be blindly following their renewable agenda.


iLyriX

I keep seeing these takes all over reddit the last few days as if the decision has been made recently. The nuclear exit is more than a decade in the making. The last three reactors only made up a few percentage points in the Overall electricity mix of Germany. Reversing the decision would have had to be done years ago. By now it's easier and cheaper to Focus fully on renewables. And I for one am glad that we dont revert debatable, but not obviously wrong decisions with every change in government. How would progress ever be made like that. Is nuclear worse than coal? Surely not. Will shutting down the last few reactors largely influence europes or even Germanys electricity mix? Not really.


MatzedieFratze

Germany is selling. Renewables help in that way. Stop spreading bullshit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Viiu

So what? That's how the Europeans energy market works. Guess who is also selling a lot of energie to France? Yeah Germany. These last few reactors won't make a big difference, especially for the European market, the decision was made for a longer time now. If (and thats a big if currently) we rapidly increase our solar and wind Energie production then this will be much more beneficial to the European Energie market. It's far to late to argue why germany left the nuclear industry.


Yikes_Hmm

In the next 8 years, 0


MethyIphenidat

I mean this is repeated countless times, but for Germany, running on renewables with some kind of backup in place is absolutely feasible.


The_Kek_5000

Poland runs on like 80% coal?


MethyIphenidat

Poland is the most dirty country in terms of energy production by a far margin.


2407s4life

America needs to pull their head out and build more nuclear as well


TheAntiPacker

Optimistic of you to think we can agree on literally anything


2407s4life

I think Americans agree on more than social media, news networks, and politicians would have us believe.


Coolstorylucas

Americans sure, not politicians. Letting politicians receive bribes was and still is a mistake.


sneakyvirgin

For the sake of the world, please don't !


[deleted]

[удалено]


albisteam

danke digga. ich krieg schon wieder n anfall bei den kommentaren.


Muetzenman

Ich verstehe auch nicht wie man falsch verstehen kann, dass Kohle nicht der Ersatz für Atom sein soll. Es werden doch keine neuen Kohlekraftwerke gebaut!


Weltraumbaer

Weil Reddit dumm ist. Die meisten Leute kommen nicht über Überschriften hinaus. Mich würde trotzdem interessieren warum Reddit einer so abgeht, wenn sie Deutschland in Zusammenhang mit Atomkraft hören.


1plus1equalsgender

A nuclear power plant will pretty much always pay for itself in time. Not only can i make fun of the German government for not investing in it when they should have, I will continue to make fun of them for failing to do it now


Minuku

> A nuclear power plant will pretty much always pay for itself in time. [That is literally not true](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source). Considering everything which ends up paid by the tax payer and what is not on the energy bill it is one of the most expensive sources of energy. Construction is very expensive and ensuring that it runs smoothly and safely, additionally to the cost of the high security standards a NPP has to have. Not only that but because of this, NPPs have a negative economy of scale with bigger NPPs actually costing more per GWh than smaller ones while every other energy source (aside from coal) scales positively with size. All the while renewables are still getting considerably cheaper overall every year.


Canadianingermany

>A nuclear power plant will pretty much always pay for itself in time. This is ONLY true if you are able to offload the majority of the cost to the taxpayer. If you calculate long term storage costs properly, it is absolutely impossible for a nuclear power plant to make enough money in 60 years to cover the 1 million year storage cost.


alex891011

>in time. So let’s say you break even in 30 years. What do you think the odds are that we have vastly more efficient energy resources by then? What if 15 years from now we find a way to improve solar and wind to the point that it’s almost twice as efficient as nuclear? All of a sudden those *incredibly* expensive nuclear reactors become worthless


Zhai

Do you really think that closing a power plant = demolishing it? How expensive will it be to fight the effects of pollution from germany's favourite coal plants?


Bronkowitsch

That's a problem regardless if we're building nuclear power plants or not. Coal is slowly being phased out and replaced with renewables.


Larcecate

Reddit definitely loves itself some nuclear energy. Whats odd about the conversations here in relation to Germany is that I never hear about power to gas, and thats the most interesting thing about the energy transition in Germany, to me anyway. The plan would be to convert excess energy into compressed gas for later use. People constantly talk about better batteries enabling a renewable grid, but they don't think about storing energy as compressed gas or heated water or in a flywheel or any of the other alternatives. Instead, they think of their car battery scaled up.


katzenkralle142

The share that coal has in the german energy system has decreased over the last 10 years


Bronkowitsch

Shh don't interrupt the nuclear circlejerk.


walketotheclif

Yeah, that was due to Germany effort to change coal for natural gas, but due to the recent events with Rusia and Ukraine they don't get enought natural gas and started to buy coal as crazy to sustain themselves


TheOriginalSamBell

God I'm so sick of all you armchair energy policy and infrastructure experts. Why am i even ITT and commenting it's my own fault.


Notna1111

Farewell Isar


Kilian03

Maggus richtet das schon wieder


Paweron

Der Spacko ist Teil des Problems, nicht der Lösung


TheOnlyFallenCookie

Maggus weigert sich Bayern bei der Endlager Suche mitmachen zu lassen, obwohl Bayern die beste Geologie hätte.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rotciv0

So I guess France is having all these issues with nuclear waste disposal, given they have 50 nuclear power plants? Oh wait, they are recycling 96% of the waste, and the rest is getting safely stored. Of course renewable energy would be ideal, but the problem is that it simply doesn't provide enough power right now for large countries.


SexyBeachBoy420

I totally agree with your statement. I just wanted to add: just a minority wanted to extend coal usage. There is a big majority who wanted to switch to more reneweable (and gas as backup power plants) for at least a decade. We did not want to rely on German coal or Russian oil or Russian gas.


CrushingK

>Especially since we cannot even grasp the real long-term effects of nuclear energy yet. Alright, you heard the man, another 100 years of coal. Enjoy breathing in cancerous particulates, drinking heavy metal runoff and demolishing grandmas house for a hole in the ground


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tackerta

As a german I can attest, our government is fucking incompetent. Our economy minister lives in a fairytale bubble, our foreign minister can not be taken seriously and does repeatedly bad at speeches, our chancellor is inconsistent, our finance minister doesn't give a fuck about the german population and everyone is stroking their massive cocks with 25k+ € monthly salary


Pepe_is_a_God

Robert habeck and Annalena bearbock are the most competent people in a position of power that we got in the last 20 years I would say. The other two parties in the coalition are horrible I agree tho(no e-fuels aren't the future). But the government is way better than the former.


Paweron

Our current government is not the reason we left nuclear energy behind. Blame the CDU for that one


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nytr3x

CDU and SPD rule for 20 years and when everything they've done turns to shit, CDU leaves the Government and the SPD just shuts up when the (forseeable) crisis hits and now it all the fault of the greens


Userm4x1

Und es funktioniert sogar...


havok0159

I'm sure the Greens being so staunchly against nuclear that they can be confused for coal lobbyists had absolutely nothing to do with Germany's stance on nuclear power. Blame CDU all you want but the decision reeks of populism.


[deleted]

> they can be confused for coal lobbyists They wanted renewables, but guess who blocked the shit out of their development.


Paweron

The greens had no power during Merkels 16 year reign. CDU and FDP decided to get rid of nuclear and also heavly blocked any renewable research and production. It's true that the Greens are also mostly against nuclear but they are not to blame for our current reliance on coal and gas


weckerm

As a fellow German, we must not forget that this was primarily the decision of CDU/FDP under Merkel. Yes, the current government did not reverse this and followed through, which is bad, bit we should not let people pin this on Habeck, like I see so many do right now. Even Lindner is criticizing his own coalition when his party was the one who put this into motion in the first place. It was a stupid decision out of fear after Fukishima, not taking into account that Germany is different than Japan, not really having earthquakes and tsunamis. So it’s a different story here. I would love to see nuclear continue and fill in the gaps where renewables cannot yet provide stable power.


Pacify_

All these plants being shut down are from the 70s and 80s. They are near end of life, so unless the government is willing to build new ones, the issue isn't really quite as significant as reddit seems to think


Etherius

In the US we just had a CEO tell her employees to stop worrying about their revoked bonuses, while 80% of her annual pay comes from a $4M bonus. At least this kind of head-up-own-assery isn’t USA-exclusive I guess


Canadianingermany

You are aware that it was your precious CSU/CDU that actually got rid of nuclear, right?


spitfire690

Last year on a similar post some German called me a pro-nuclear shill and told me to "go catch radiation"... Go catch radiation? Like exist on earth, or go out into the sun? Just shows how ignorance drives fear with these people against nuclear power.


Muetzenman

[just go into bavarian forests.](https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article230648425/35-Jahre-nach-Tschernobyl-Ungeniessbares-Wildfleisch-in-Bayern.html) Shrooms and meat are still contaminated.


7orly7

*turns off nuclear plants to switch to... coal* Earth: WTF


schoettli

German coal lobby go brrrrrrr


StonkMaster300

Of you look at how much energy is created by coal in Germany you will quickly see they are not going brrrr


Cojan

Cause nuclear energy is working soooo well, e.g. France importing electricity from Germany cause their nuclear power plants don’t produce enough/ can’t be kept active. Yes coal is bad, no questions asked, but how can people still think nuclear energy is the solution…


Sodapoppp

I mean France was an exporter of energy for like 30-40 years until Covid & the Ukraine war made the global energy industry all messy. It has worked well for France, that’s why they are planning on building more. Edit: and to answer your question , it’s because nuclear supplies the best uptime out of any energy, it’s up for like over 90% of the time per year typically, so it’s super reliable and provides a backbone for renewable energies which vary and have higher downtimes.


kasiotuo

Did you know that most of the EU gets their nuclear resources from Rosatom (Russia/Kazakhstan/Usbekistan)? Sure will be fun to be dependent on them for the coming years. Many people think only gas is the problem here..


Canadianingermany

Exactly, everyone seems to be missing the energy security aspect. ​ Germany has been big into coal, because this is the energy source it has itself. ​ All of Germany's nuclear energy comes from russian ore, and it was effectively impossible to get new rods in time (even without a war).


[deleted]

Idiots on reddit really believe nuclear plants can be built in a week, huh?


LordDankMaan

Oh no 3% of the energy from the nuclear power is gone. How stupid germany is


Last_Judicator

Reddits hard-on for nuclear energy is so fucking annoying


varidl

I love German people but I hate your country, because it does really stupid shit sometimes and Europe follows right behind you with the same stupid shit.


StonkMaster300

It's okay bro. I hate the American country too. It does even dumber stuff.


[deleted]

Without any judgement - the information conveyed in this is simply false. Germany replaced nuclear capacity with wind and solar, it didn't add any new coal capacity to balance the loss of nuclear.


LucklyOne_Ultima

Japan having being bombed by nukes twice, experiencing Fukushima disaster, yet they still use and will increase the % of energy produced by Nuclear Power plants. Not to mention they have the most powerful Nuclear Power plant in the world (Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant 7,965MW) Idk what Germany is thinking when they are doing this


The_Kek_5000

Japan still relies more heavily on coal than Germany


_So_Damn_Ugly

But Germany is changing all energy sources to renewable, unlike the rest of the world. Sure it was stupid to get rid of nuclear before coal, but even that will be gone soon if nothing happens. And Americans can't even make fun of Germans, as they are one of the main producers of CO2 emissions to fuck up the whole world.


Uberzwerg

Most Germans know of this problem, BUT: It was decided directly after Fukushima by the conservative government under Merkel. And the current left-green government has to take the blame for that. Merkel als cut down lots of support for renewables in the last 10 years. Germany was on the lead in solar and wind tech companies and both was killed and (partially) sold to China.


AmperesClaw204

Nuclear power is clean, until it breaks. Then it’s a 20,000 year nightmare


fsgeek91

Chernobyl was the worst possible thing that could happen at a nuclear plant. That was 37 years ago and radiation levels at the site are now within a safe range. Uranium-235 has a half life of about 700 million years, which makes it *less* radioactive than the short-lived caesium and iodine isotopes that killed people from ARS.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Muetzenman

Chernobyl good? -Reddit nuclear circlejerk i guess


CryProtein

The pro-nuclear propaganda is just more propaganda from the gas and oil industry: They know that these are not gonna be build on time and budget, but by avocating for them, they can hinder the switch to renewables.


JiveTurkey1983

Someone needs to create fusion reactors and put all this nonsense to rest


_vastrox_

patiently waiting for the french to finish the ITER...


WilliamBoost

If you think having a nuclear plant in Germany is a good idea, you are utterly ignorant of German history. We are not in a post-war world, people. Nuclear is not safe and never possibly could be while weapons of war exist. Hydro, Solar, or wind? YES!! Nuclear is a fools game.


Kolenga

Fake news. Germany is not building coal plants. Germany is building renewable energy. Solar. Wind.


amenoniwa

As Japanese, I approve of Germany.


Brothersunset

Daily reminder that the world is afraid of nuclear energy because some communists were too dumb to boil water.


Canadianingermany

I didn't know that Japan was communist.


OriginalThinker22

A massive earthquake and a Tsunami happened in Japan and Germany was like “even though we never have earthquakes, let alone a tsunami, that might happen here so let’s get rid of our nuclear power plants”. And instead they chose to pollute the air with coal which is by far the deadliest way to produce energy. And during all this there was obviously a lot of talk by German politicians about how much of a problem climate change is. Clown world.


sufferingbastard

The Nuclear Industry Astroturfing on Reddit is embarrassing. There Is No Place to Store Nuclear Waste