this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
431 points (99.8% liked)

memes

22110 readers
2526 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
431
🎶36 degrees and it's getting hotter🎶 (lemmy.nz)
submitted 1 month ago by CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de to c/memes@lemmy.world
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Most of our fuel rods came from russia.

Idk about that, but even if, but uranium is fairly abundant in the earth, more than gold or silver. Getting it from somewhere else is not a big deal.

nuclear is prohibitively expensive

Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.

uninsureable

That's wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.

Fukushima was a problem of risk assessment and massive complacency about procedures, where fundamental security protocols were ignored to "safe some money". Also, building a nuclear power plant in an area that is facing tsunamis almost regularly was pretty dumb. And Chernobyl was a case of "What happens if we experiment with that hot rock we know nothing about?"

and has unanswered questions regarding permanent waste storage.

Yes, but it's no longer as much of a problem. We've gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we're able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible. Even tho that processing method hasn't been put to the test yet afaik.

Renewables are the answer

Probably not for germany. We don't fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power.

  • Solar is the first choice, we'd need absurd amounts of space for solar panels. Also, it's obviously only available during the day, making batteries necessary. And I mean a LOT of fucking batteries.
  • Wind is great and widely available in the north of germany - but that doesn't help the south. Moving power from north germany to south germany is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Also has the battery problem.
  • Hydro is cool, where available. Just bad that it's barely available. Same with geothermal.
  • Leaves us with biomass, which is a nice supplement to the power grid to use up waste from the agricultural sector - but it's not going to carry germanies power needs in any meaningful way.

100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany. It's just a wishful thinking. We can't magically produce vast amounts of power anywhere. We need a way to produce a reliable base load even in areas that are not in a great position for renewable power.

Nuclear is the best long term option we have.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.

Even over the lifetimenof a plant, nuclear is by far the most expensive form of power generation.

That's wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.

Yet no insurance company will insure an NPP. They are uninsurable.

We've gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we're able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible.

We already do have a huge problem storing the waste we don't have and nuclear waste is too dangerous to rely on hypothetical reusability. Germany's federal Ministry for Nuclear Safety released a report in 2015 estimating the total cost of dismantling and managing nuclear waste from german NPPs based on 2012 prices and not including the cost of disposal facilities to be aroun 6 billion Euro until 2080.

We don't fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power. […] 100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany.

It is though. First thing you miss ia that Germany does not have an isolated power grid. In fact, the Conrinental European Synchronous Area is one of the largest synchronous electrical grids in the world.
Second, the number of available batteries is constantly growing with fun concepts as using your electric car's battery for overnight electricity. Every home can have sufficient battery storage individually (even without BEVs).
Third, there are still massive capacities for wind parks and solar parks all over Germany and certain concepts can even help mitigating certain consequences of climate change already in effect, like agriphotovoltaic protecting crops.

The future is renewables. Nuclear is superfluous, too expensive and too much hassle.

Btw, here is more to read on why nuclear is not a solution (german website): https://quellen.tv/energie#Kernkraft