Comments
Veilchengerd t1_ixr73lt wrote
Unfortunately, the conservatives, who hold a death grip on the Bundesrat, screwed over poor people again and made a joke of the wellfare reform.
Basically, nothing really changes, people just get a little more money. The original proposal was not exactly a dramatic change, either (after all, the liberals are part of the coalition), but what we get now doesn't deserve the name "reform".
Lernenberg t1_ixu4bav wrote
Fuck CDU and FDP.
pinniped1 t1_ixqyock wrote
Good news indeed!
Mildly irritating that the article makes it seem driven by short-term "high prices", but I'll take any win we can get in terms of using more clean energy and less fossil fuels.
RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixr5srm wrote
Can we send the bill for those shitty plants to you then? Cause I do not want to see my taxes wasted on the most inefficient and costly form of energy. And I hope that you live for a few thousand years too so you can take care of the nuclear waste for us.
yayacocojambo t1_ixr83yw wrote
How is that trillion euros spent on energiwende working out for you…?
RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixr8xf5 wrote
I wish it was a trillion and the money we invest into renewables sure as hell is a better investment than flushing it down the nuclear toilet.
Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.
Not to mention that the costs of nuclear do not even include the giant costs that are yet to come when all the reactors have to be build back and the waste has to be cared for literally thousands of years.
Utxi4m t1_ixrc2ik wrote
>Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Reality seem to disagree with your position. Rather fiercely even.
France decarbonised their electricity supply faster and cheaper than Germany. And with much much better results.
>average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.
That's just a straight up lie. Where did you get that from? (Genuinely curious)
Mandelmensch t1_ixshm8d wrote
Just look at the amount of imported energy to france from all of europe and tell me again how good nuclear power is, when you neglect your power stations. Also france is forcing a fixed price for electricity to the power stations, which is below production price. In turn they have to bail out the providers with tax money. In the end its more expensive and the rest of europe carries the cost of providing missing capacity.
Utxi4m t1_ixsiwvs wrote
So, since the eighties France has saved a "few" billion tons of CO2, has consistently lower CO2 emmisions today, has spent less establishing their carbon neutral capacity. But that is nullified due to one poor year where weather and covid delayed maintenance hit poorly?
Germany is restarting coal plants (and burning other nations forests) after investing a trillion in renewables. But the French energy system is the bad one?
>Also france is forcing a fixed price for electricity to the power stations, which is below production price. In turn they have to bail out the providers with tax money
How is that relevant? Do we want clean energy fast and cheap? Then French nuclear outclasses German renewables by a gigantic margin.
> In the end its more expensive and the rest of europe carries the cost of providing missing capacity.
EDf is bringing 30GW capacity online early 2023, as probably the only thing keeping Europe from ending in full blown Mad Max. If Germany hadn't shuttered 30GW of nuclear, we wouldn't have a problem at all...
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ixus8b7 wrote
Tell me about the clean coal Germany is using again?
France actually solved much of its emission problems 40 years ago and french energy remains a cleaner than Germany’s.
Utxi4m t1_ixsv1tk wrote
And since we are looking at France today. Have you seen the latest OECD growth estimates. Germany -0.3% and France +0,6%, 0.9% GDP difference and all of it attributed exclusively to energy availability.
That's a pretty massive one off cost you can throw on top of the bet on renewables.
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixs5zzr wrote
Another person who has bought into the propaganda that nuclear energy isn’t the cleanest, safest and cheapest energy source.
Oil and coal industry has lied to you and you ate it up.
CorpusCalIosum t1_ixtz2oz wrote
It isn't lol
PV solar is no less safe and it's significantly cheaper at utility scale, I'd say it's probably not as clean due to material but it also doesn't take 10+ years to get an installation operational
kraenk12 t1_ixu71wq wrote
Oh god you people are absolutely disgusting.
RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixs73dj wrote
lol you just mindlessly repeat the reddit nuclear shilling.
The Inkai Uranium project spans about 486km2 where a hole is drilled every 25-50m and millions of tonnes of sulfuric acid is poured into the ground. Other activity is exluded from an area in a 15km radius or around 1000km2 due to the ground water contamination. It devastates nature on a scale only comparable to coal mining. "bUt iT iS ToTaLly thE cLEaNeST enErgY eVEr!"
The EPR project in France. 15+y in the making, still not operating. The budget has exploded 3 times the original budget. The price per kWh will be between 2-3 times more of new solar PV. Not included of course are the insane costs of building the plants back and taking care of the nuclear waste for thousands of years. Nevermind that there literally is no business case for nuclear energy cause it is so freaking cost inefficient that the only way to make a profit with it is to make taxpayers pay for all the costs and externalities for you! "bUt iT iS tHe cHeApEsT enErgY eVEr!"
Then of course there are the catastrophic, landscape-destroying and ocean/groundwater-poisoning disasters we all know about that supposedly can only happen once every thousand years but already happened multiple times in my lifetime alone. Oh and nuclear waste that will be a safety hazard for THOUSANDS of years. "HERP DERP BUT IT IS ALSO THE SAFEST ENERGY!"
You people are cultists.
fredo3579 t1_ixrpol0 wrote
delusional
gburgwardt t1_ixro8sx wrote
You’d rather pay Putin to kill Ukrainians for you?
[deleted] t1_ixs4rbs wrote
[removed]
wahresschaff t1_ixsb7bp wrote
I'm German but excuse me if I don't get the terminology right: since when do we have an upper house?
nyaaaa t1_ixse95s wrote
DefiniteSpace t1_ixszg87 wrote
Auf Englisch Bitte.
Divinate_ME t1_ixuez3x wrote
They put this into one single package of bills? What the fuck? Do they think we're distracted due to the world cup? Nuclear power and Bürgergeld shouldn't be passed in unison. The topics are that different that you couldn't exhaustively debate everything before making a decision.
astenbein t1_ixuhcqo wrote
While I think nuclear energy should stay, the debate about nuclear power was held after Fukushima and even this year they were talking about it all the time. Crucial investments for nuclear infrastructure should have been made these past years, if we had wanted to continue using nuclear energy. As it stands nuclear energy is fucked either way in Germany. Why would investors give money for new nuclear reactors? Also I remember that the problem about the new fuel rods isn't even cleared up.
Divinate_ME t1_ixuhjiz wrote
I'm simply asking that people do not debate energy security and social welfare in the same goddamn limited time speech. Is that that much of an ask?
visitor-2024 t1_ixrnei2 wrote
Germany had many nuclear power plants. Where are they now? OK, people probably voted against nuclear power as it seemed more risky. Now country depends on external power sources with risk to loose knowledge on how to build and operate nuclear power plants. I don't really get who wins.
LookThisOneGuy t1_ixrxxtt wrote
> Germany had many nuclear power plants. Where are they now?
Some shut down because they are old. Some shut down because of politics. Some still operating.
The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?
Since the 1992 (30 years ago) only three nuclear reactors have started construction in Europe. One in France, one in Finland and Hinkley Point C in the UK (counts as two?).
The narrative simply cannot be that Germanys =bad for no nuclear but other countries, like Poland or Lithuania = good for no nuclear.
Well it can be, if nuclear doesn't matter and the arguments are just racism.
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ixut4mk wrote
>”Some shut down because they are old. Some shut down because of politics. Some still operating.”
They were all shut down for politics. The German government set the end of life for all their plants and then decided to phase them all out after Fukushima. The German NPPs “end of life” dates are based solely on politicians drawing an arbitrary line not the useable lifespan of the plants.
>”The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?”
Because of fear mongering and misinformation. China has been investing heavily in nuclear energy to replace their coal. They have hundreds of reactors planned or under construction and are on track to build more nuclear energy capacity than the entire US electric grid. Their plants are built within a decade and don’t run ridiculously over budget as they are beginning to achieve the economies of scale that make nuclear competitive.
LookThisOneGuy t1_ixuuxep wrote
Of course. Germany shutting down nuclear is because they are dumb.
Other EU countries not having nuclear can't be because they are dumb, it must be China!
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ixuvl8x wrote
You asked why countries have not built any the answer is politics. It’s not a technical or economic challenge as China has proven.
LookThisOneGuy t1_ixuwd9p wrote
I aksed why Germany is seen as stupid for not doing it and other EU countries are not. The answer is racism.I haven't seen 10 reddit threads ever week calling CEE countries stupid for not building nuclear. Why? Racism
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ixv0s1d wrote
Maybe re-read your own question. And also google what racism means, you seem to be clueless.
>“The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?”
LookThisOneGuy t1_ixv272z wrote
The full part of my comment:
> The narrative simply cannot be that Germanys =bad for no nuclear but other countries, like Poland or Lithuania = good for no nuclear. > > Well it can be, if nuclear doesn't matter and the arguments are just racism.
But you might be right:
> And also google what racism means
It could have been xenophobia instead of racism, according to some definitions.
Still, ask yourself: Why do I only blame Germany when this seems to be widespread phenomenon across all of Europe? Check your privilege and accept inernalised bigotry. Say no to hate!
Preisschild t1_ixu3qff wrote
Poland is currently investing a ton of money into nuclear power.
They just announced power plants from Westinghouse (USA) and KHNP (S Korea) will be built in Poland.
Diligent-Road-6171 t1_ixsb0jk wrote
> The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?
political histeria as a result of nuclear doommongering.
It's not a coincidence that china has led the world in nuclear powerplant construction over the past 40 years.
nyaaaa t1_ixsdtku wrote
Can't be about how they didn't have any and just started building them when the first ones in other countries were shut down due to age.
No way.
> past 40 years.
Make that 20 at best. More like 15.
mangalore-x_x t1_ixrpgyp wrote
> I don't really get who wins.
Bavaria. They retain the only research reactor with weapon grade uranium in Europe.
gburgwardt t1_ixrooae wrote
Putin was winning because Germany was much more reliant on them than they had been with nuclear plants
But you’re looking at things the wrong way if you’re always looking for who wins
Sometimes the people are just stupid and vote for stupid bs
Like in the USA when we vote for immigration restrictions or protectionism
Or in this case, Germans voting to shut down their nuclear plants because of Japan’s issues with their plants.
marioquartz t1_ixrm9py wrote
Nuclears that will be absurly expensive, and will be stoped because the water of rivers will be hot or the exited water will be too hot for allow rifer life. So... good news /s
Archerfenris t1_ixrp92w wrote
Seriously- what the hell are you talking about?
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixs6ksu wrote
There talking about nuclear technologies from the 80’s and referencing some propaganda
marioquartz t1_ixsa76x wrote
Im referencing actual facts about actual nuclear centrals in France.
Athegnostistian t1_ixya9wz wrote
Why France? This is about Germany. Are the German reactors of the same type?
Even if so, if Germany were to shut down their nuclear reactors, they would rely even more than already on French nuclear power, as well as fossil power (coal, oil, gas). The process of building more renewable energy sources won't be delayed due to the extension of runtime of these nuclear plants. Would you rather burn more fossil fuels and release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
Serious question. I'm trying to understand your position. What do you suggest?
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixsbtoa wrote
No your not.
marioquartz t1_ixscca8 wrote
Reality disagress. Actual present reactors in this present year in France.
The_GASK t1_ixseiyr wrote
>https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/warming-french-rivers-could-take-more-nuclear-supply-offline-2022-05-25/ > >https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise > >https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Hot-Rivers-To-Limit-French-Nuclear-Power-Output-Amid-Energy-Crisis.html > >Reality disagress. Actual present reactors in this present year in France.
While the danger was there for some steam turbines systems (generated by nuclear, fossil and biofuel energy), there was never a situation where the temperatures reached a critical level.
This is more a demonstration that alternatives to fossil fuel is necessary right now with more clean energy, including nuclear.
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixseifc wrote
No you are not*
marioquartz t1_ixsg1te wrote
You are not presenting nothing. You are a troll.
14DusBriver t1_ixs0s9u wrote
Thermal pollution is more manageable than CO2 emissions
Dump hot water into the water table and it’s not like it irreversibly contaminates the groundwater supply for generations.
Archerfenris t1_ixs35t2 wrote
The problem is that nuclear plants don’t return water back to nature…they take it away, but they don’t return it. It’s called a condenser and they keep using unused steam until it’s used up. I seriously have no clue where this idea that nuclear plants overheat rivers is coming from…
Magickmaster t1_ixs4n7f wrote
In the end the water is returned to the environment. It's not 'used up' - that's not physically possible. Either through exhaust water or steam, it's going out again. But yeah, thr heat is used as much as possible.
Archerfenris t1_ixtldnc wrote
Right- but they’re not dumping boiling water into the rivers is my point.
[deleted] t1_ixugfqz wrote
[deleted]
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixsbk4v wrote
Massive propaganda campaign was run from 70 to late 90s pushing this idea heavily. It only has a minor truth to it, where if a plant goes from critical to super critical, they will siphon and push water to cool old style reactors down, then put it back into a lake or river.
Archerfenris t1_ixtltzy wrote
Yeah- there is a serious anti-nuclear crowd and I’m all for if you’re just opposed to it, but it’s the lies and propaganda that get me
marioquartz t1_ixsagmt wrote
From Nuclear plants in France. Part of the water is returned to rivers. And even if you dont return it, there are other actual problem the input of water is too warn.
Archerfenris t1_ixtln3e wrote
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-work
Not sure what nuclear reactors in France are doing, but in the US at least, nothing goes back into the environment other than some steam released into the air.
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixsb6rf wrote
You have no idea how nuclear power works do you? In one sentence you demonstrated that you should not be trusted when it comes to these things because you cannot take the time to actually look into these things
marioquartz t1_ixsc19o wrote
Well do you have demostrated that YOU have no looked about it. Search about French Nuclear Plants and rivers. Your lack of knowledge dont mean nothing.
YOU have dedicated zero seconds. You need do more.
[deleted] t1_ixsesed wrote
[removed]
Preisschild t1_ixu3l5a wrote
The biggest american nuclear power plant is in a desert. They just use the nearby cities wastewater for cooling.
Plenty of solutions for this one issue.
Ecstatic_Carpet t1_ixru6rd wrote
Isn't this just an extension of the operating licenses for existing plants? I don't think they're building new ones.
RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixr4v1y wrote
35yo German here. Worst government I ever witnessed. Even Schröder was not as incompetent/corrupt as these clowns and that is saying something. Of course the nuclear shills on reddit love this though.
gburgwardt t1_ixrorqd wrote
You prefer Merkel, who enabled Putin and continued trying to give him money and tie the German economy to Russia despite them annexing Crimea?
RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixs4oyf wrote
Yes Merkel was a lot better.
Beamierstatue61 t1_ixr58fj wrote
🥺
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ixr5vio wrote
Yup, nuclear fission was never a good deal for anyone, this idiotic decision is a disaster.
Utxi4m t1_ixrappr wrote
You don't think the energy situation across Europe would have been a tad lighter if Germany still had its full fleet of NPPs?
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ixrbhyo wrote
They should have shut down these super expensive poison factories years ago and used all that money for technologies that are actually green, clean, safe and renewable. Then they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
Nuclear fission is a failed technology, propping up this dishonest industry has been a bad mistake for years.
Utxi4m t1_ixrd0xl wrote
>poison factories
Please elaborate.
>technologies that are actually green
A 13MW Haliade offshore wind turbine consists of 1 ton of neodymium, 63 tons of copper, 800 tons of glass fiber, 4000 tons of steel and 5000 tons of concrete.
The 63 tons of cobber alone requires breaking of approx 50.000 tons of ore.
The neodymium is such a hazzle to extract that practically only China has environmental laws lax enough to allow it. Leaving massive lakes of toxic and radioactive sludge.
The environmental footprint of your "clean" energy is completely of the scale.
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ixry44c wrote
Looks like the NEI nuke shills are here
Are wind turbines dangerously radioactive for 200,000 years?
Utxi4m t1_ixsc17n wrote
>Are wind turbines dangerously radioactive for 200,000 years?
You don't even care about the massive environmental destruction your preferred energy source causes? You didn't even react to the staggering destruction a single turbine causes.
Is this a case of winning being more important than doing good?
Also, is nuclear waste dangerously radioactive for 200,000 years? No.
The thing with radioactivity is that the danger of it is pretty closely reversely correlated with the half life of the various isotopes. Stuff with a half life measured in seconds, days or months can really dose out some significant doses of ionising radiation, while stuff with half-lifes numbering in the tens of thousands of years is pretty harmless (from a radiological point of view).
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ixscoer wrote
More lies and distortions from the nuke shills
You fools don't get paid enough to sound so ignorant
Preisschild t1_ixu3x6u wrote
Materials in solar panels are not only bad for 30 years (as with nuclear), but forever.
No_Mushroom351 t1_ixrjoak wrote
Oh boy.
Somebody is very ignorant on nuclear plants, the technology today and doesn't realize the water vapor exhaust of nuclear is CO2 free.
Tell me more about the solar batteries! How toxic are they by comparison?
Fuckyourdatareddit t1_ixs4nqd wrote
How much CO2 is released building nuclear plants again 🤔
SoggyBiscuit7835 t1_ixsdkbs wrote
Quite a lot but if you divide that by the energy yielded it's actually very favourable.
Preisschild t1_ixu41uz wrote
Not as much over the lifespan of the plant as other energy sources like hydro.
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ixrybpp wrote
Predictable nuke shill spreading the "nuclear fission is zero carbon" lie again.
Are batteries dangerously radioactive for 200,000 years?
No_Mushroom351 t1_ixs858p wrote
lol. A swimming pool of spent fuel rods powers 150 million homes. Yeah. A swimming pool
Don't think you even realize these spent fuels are transported on the highway all the time. You can stand next to one of the containers for a year and you won't even get a fraction of what the sun gives you. They've driven past you for more than half a century and you weren't even aware.
Also, most modern reactors can even run off recycled spent fuel rods.
Is it reactive? Yes. Then put a foot of material between you and you're fine.
Btw it's not glowing liquid goo in drums.
Everyone crying about it has zero understanding of how the plants today operate, what protocols are already in place, how radiation works on a physical level, etc.
If you even knew what material those batteries are made of, how lithium is mined and transported, how much ore has to be processed to make a single windmill...
I like green energy, I just think people that downplay nuclear are extremely ignorant on physics.
[deleted] t1_ixsagxp wrote
[removed]
Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixs9190 wrote
Lmao I thought you were talking about oil and coal.
What world do you live in that nuclear power plants are more toxic than the current standard of oil and coal? Are you dumb or are you working for BPs marketing department? Just going to ignore the ecological damage coal and oil gas has done compared to ecological damage nuclear power plants have done. Last major nuclear power plant disaster was over a decade ago, the damage to area surrounding to it was not major, as compared to I don’t know deep horizon oil spill that is still causing problems for the entire gulf coast 12 years later.
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ixsb5l3 wrote
The nuke bro shills are thick in this thread
So many ,lies and distortions from the industry troll farms. The nuclear industry is one of the most corrupt on the planet.
Nuclear fission was never a good deal for anybody but the few companies that hire out these troll farms and collect the short term profit while leaving future taxpayers to manage the super dangerous and toxic radioactive waste for the next 200,000 years.
They are worse than the tobacco and the pharmaceutical industries combined, leaving behind thousands of radioactive sites across the globe
__The__Anomaly__ t1_ixqqyx4 wrote
Now this is some good news