this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024

141 points (91.7% liked)

World News

39082 readers

3096 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

141

IAEA chief says German return to nuclear power is 'logical' (www.dw.com)

submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, called Germany's decision to fully phase out nuclear power "illogical," noting it is the only country to have done so.

Despite the completed phase-out in 2023, there is renewed debate in Germany about reviving nuclear energy due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at COP29, Grossi described reconsidering nuclear as a "rational" choice, especially given global interest in nuclear for emissions reduction.

Germany’s phase-out, driven by environmental concerns and past nuclear disasters, has been criticized for increasing reliance on Russian gas and missing carbon reduction opportunities.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out it was a good thing, when the Greens phased out the last 3, it became a bad thing.

That's literally all this discussion is about. Anyone who's actually taken a look at the data knows that phasing it out was the right move and that there's no point in bringing it back. There's a reason the share of nuclear keeps going down in the EU. Germany is also not the only country that doesn't use nuclear anymore.

Here are the sources for anyone interested:

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it. Nuclear is the only viable clean baseload power generation option we have. Solar and wind can't do it, coal and oil are filthy, battery storage is nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 week ago

Bro has been asleep for the past 10 years lmao

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn't work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

"Baseload" is still needed. Renewables are great but they are simply not there yet. There is a world between "potential" and "available".

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Yeah, right now. But not in 10 years when the first npps could be ready. And you would also need storage for npps when there is a lot of wind or sun, cause you can't shut down the npps all the time or thermal stresses will cause damages to the pipes. And renewables are here now, it's the storage that needs to catch up.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] ValiantDust@feddit.org 40 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (22 children)

I deeply wish that people would understand that this horse is deader than dead. There is no Frankensteinian experiment and no virus that will bring it back to even a zombie-like half-life. So would you, please, please, just stop beating the poor thing.

It doesn't matter anymore how it died, it's really time to get a new horse.

Edit: Instead of just down voting, could you explain to me:

How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?
Who is going to pay the billions of Euros to build new nuclear power plants? The energy companies are not interested.
Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades' worth of nuclear waste we already have.
How this is making us independent of Russia, our former main source of Uranium

I just fail to see any way how this could right now solve our problem.

load more comments (22 replies)

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 9 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Propagandist propagandizes.

More news at 11

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This article doesn't mention the most important part of all. Nuclear power only made up about 2% of the German energy mix. The power production lost by the loss of nuclear power plants was entirely compensated by renewable power and we also have the smallest coal consumption in about 60 years, so the shutdown had no effect on the German power grid.

The shutdown of our nuclear power plants was also planned since 2011 after the failure of Fukushima. Our government extended the running time by 1 year but it devinetively didnt had the power to just revert the shutdown.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago

Note that the 2011 plan was the reversal of the 2009 extension plan, that was a reactionary reversal of the 2002 plan to phase out nuclear power until 2022. So the issue was the reactionary "lets make more nuclear! Oh shit, a nuclear plant blew up, lets track back on our backtrack" move by the CDU/FDP coalition of the time. Incidently the parties that also now are also crying to want back nuclear.

[–] remon@ani.social -2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Nuclear power only made up about 2% of the German energy mix

Like in 2023 right before the phaseout? What are you talking about?

It used to be 22% of the energy mix.

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago

To make this clear. Germany decided in 2011 that it finally wants to phase out nuclear(I'm not going into the details about it before 2011). This was 13 years ago. Since then Germany slowly shut down its nuclear power plants. The final shutdown was last year. Before the final shutdown it was about 2% of the total energy mix. Until the final shutdown none gave a fuck about Germany nuclear power plants shutshuting down. After the phase out was done everyone suddenly wants to return to nuclear, even if its not really an economically viable option(I'm not even talking about the waste problems) and even tho that we can't just turn them on. There are only a few power plants left where the tearing down of them hasn't started yet. It would take some time to certificate a lot of stuff(to make sure the plant is safe), get fuel and hire and maybe teach the new staff.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, 20 years ago. If you build more renewables the share of all other power sources goes down.

If you look at the total values in your source, you'll see nuclear to decline since 2006. And from 2021-2023 then the full phase out happened. But the only plants that hypothetically could have ran a bit longer were only left to produce 2%.

To revert now, Germany first would need to invest billions to modernize the plants, which would take years to scale back into it. Also it would likely need to buy their fuel rods from Russia, defeating the whole purpose of sanctioning Russian Oil and Gas.

[–] remon@ani.social 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, 20 years ago. If you build more renewables the share of all other power sources goes down.

Exactly, who cares what it was last year when the phase out was almost done? Claiming that all nuclear was "replaced" by renewables is just a Milchmädchenrechnung to make you feel better. It could have replaced lignite instead.

Anyway, pointless to discuss this people from the feddit.org filter bubble. Let the ballots talk in February.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 6 days ago

You realize that it takes money and workers to upkeep, repair, rebuild plants? Staying with nuclear costs money that instead is better invested in renewables. And you realize that maintaining that share against newly build renewables requires new plants right?

You understand that 20% of 100 are 20 and 20% of 200 are 40 right? Like when you look at the charts, you see that the total production capacity doubled, because of the exponential growth of renewables. So it would need new plants to maintain the share.

So unless the plants you demanded were already in planning in 1990, there is no way they would have been there in 2010. Seriously, with how bad at math and physics the proponents of nuclear power are it is all the more important to keep them away from such a dangerous technology.

[–] Zacpod@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.

[–] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org 21 points 1 week ago

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This "replace with coal" bs is straight up misinformation.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago (6 children)

We didn't. We chose renewables over nuclear.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is a larger usage of fossil fuels than there otherwise would have been. A certain portion of new renewables replaced nuclear power instead of fossil fuelled plants.

So yes, Germany did prioritize removing safe, clean energy over removing dirty, dangerous energy.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 6 days ago

Safe like Three Missile Islands, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Clean like Murmansk.

Fun fact, just last week in a supposedly safe storage site in Germany contaminated water was found. Nobody knows where it comes from and where it goes.

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Atommuelllager-Asse-Bergleute-stossen-auf-radioaktives-Salzwasser,asse1684.html

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments