this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
312 points (85.0% liked)

Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

2448 readers
88 users here now

#funny

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 69 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What comes out of a coal power plant is unburnt coal, which will contain some amount of carbon 14 which is slightly radioactive.

What comes out of a nuclear power station is water vapor. Which is not even slightly radioactive.

Therefore coal power stations output more nuclear material than nuclear power stations, which output none. We live in a world of idiots.

[–] smegforbrains@lemmy.ml 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (17 children)

I think we should include nuclear waste in the output calculation of nuclear power plants. Just the high level waste from nuclear power plants is hundreds of thousands times more radioactive and toxic than coal plant output.

But your are right, we should move away from both of these: coal and nuclear power. And this is actually exactly what the German people want and what the government has decided. Ending coal burning is scheduled for 2038 and complete switch to renewable energy production is scheduled for 2045. This is called the Energiewende (Energy Transition) and here is the government's page on this topic: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498

Google translate: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Germans agree with this policy and we even want it faster: https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html

Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 16 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Fission is still much less impactful in terms of environmental damage and hazard in the transitionary period.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] runlikellama@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The half life of C14 is about 4500 years. Due to the age of coal, generally millions on years it tends to contain crazy small amounts of C14, just like petrol.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 40 points 9 months ago

Meanwhile fly ash from coal is MORE radioactive than being near a nuclear plant.

[–] Skedule@lemmy.ml 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

All the comments about the nuclear reactor disasters remind me of a Vsauce video called Risk. . Michael talks about a hypothetical world where "one cigarette pack out of every eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty contains a single cigarette laced with dynamite that, when lit, violently explodes, blowing the user's head off. People would be loudly and messily losing their heads every day all over the world but in that imaginary universe the same number of people would die every day because of smoking that already do". Nuclear disasters are messy, but affect less people than coal plants operating normally.

[–] smegforbrains@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It's not a question of either using coal or nuclear power in Germany. The idea is to phase out coal power production by 2038 and replaced them by building 40 green hydrogen plants in order to be climate neutral by 2045 with renewables, which already are 52% of the German mix and the before mentioned green hydrogen plants.

Here's a Google translation of a source about the energy transition in Germany:

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Energiewende?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bloodh0undJohnson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, but the only choice isn't between smoking cigarettes and smoking dynamite sticks. Coal being bad doesn't make nuclear good. Meltdowns aren't the only bad things that nuclear reactors can cause. Where I live, people are losing their heads talking about how we need more nuclear power so we can get bigger electric cars to replace bicycles and public transport (not to replace cars with internal combustion engines, of course, because how else would people get on board with building infrastructure for giant electric sports cars than to let pre-existing rustbuckets roam free and keep gas stations in operation).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeckGazer@programming.dev 25 points 9 months ago
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 16 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I understand that it's supposed to be a shitty comic and not a balanced, reasonable take, but if you'd like to hear a German perspective anyways:

I'm not aware of any official representative lobbying other countries to end nuclear, except of course in nations that build their totally safe reactors near our border. I'm also not aware of us being awarded or recognized for our stance. Individual Germans, like me, will of course have been fed different propaganda than you and will argue accordingly.

No one here likes the coal generators. And with how much cheaper solar is these days, they're definitely on the way out. But we don't have a dictatorship anymore, luckily, so even obviously good paths will face pushback, like from entire regions whose jobs are in the coal industry.
We've just been able to get a consensus on abolishing nuclear much more quickly for multiple reasons:

  • Chernobyl directly affected us, including the people running our country. Russia also attacked nuclear reactors in the Ukraine, which certainly reminded people of Chernobyl.
  • At the start of the Ukraine war, it was unclear whether Russia might also launch attacks on us, including our nuclear reactors.
  • Russia also cut off our natural gas supply. We have practically no own Uranium deposits either, so reducing dependence on foreign nations was definitely in our interest, too.
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The lobbyist groups involved are very PRO-nuclear, hence why there's so many nuclear posts on literally every single social media platform.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

At the start of the Ukraine war, it was unclear whether Russia might also launch attacks on us, including our nuclear reactors.

Russia hasn't attacked any nuclear reactors in Ukraine for obvious reasons. The notions that Russia would attack nuclear reactors in Germany is pure absurdity that no sane person could believe.

Russia also cut off our natural gas supply. We have practically no own Uranium deposits either, so reducing dependence on foreign nations was definitely in our interest, too.

That's a straight up lie. Russia never cut off gas supply to Germany, and in fact has repeatedly stated that one of Nord Stream pipelines is operational. German government is choosing to buy Russian LNG through third parties instead of buying pipeline gas directly.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, I don't know what to tell you. These things have been broadly reported here in Germany. Whom of us was mislead, doesn't matter for explaining why us Germans have a different stance on things.

Here's two random articles, but I can send a whole list of links, if your search engine isn't turning up anything:

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

Yes, let's reverse that and and make ourself dependent from Russia again...

Also, coal production has been doing nothing than falling since we made the switch. Renewables have been the major energy source 2023, for the first time, and are only prosepected to grow, while Germany is transitioning away from coal. One of the main reasons for the increase in coal in 2022 were the outages of frech nuclear plants...

After coal-fired power plants in Germany ramped up their production in 2022 due to outages of French nuclear power plants and distortions in the electricity market caused by the war in Ukraine, their share in electricity production fell significantly in 2023. Due to the drop in exports of coal-fired power and this years favorable wind conditions, electricity generation from coal-fired power plants in November 2023 was 27% below the generation in November 2022.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/public-electricity-generation-2023-renewable-energies-cover-the-majority-of-german-electricity-consumption-for-the-first-time.html

You can look at the graphs here to see how coal is already back to where it was pre-shutdown.

And as can be seen here, Germany has been able to cover their baseload only with renewables more and more. This is expected to increase, as renewables are growing and battery technology advances.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Germany is still entirely dependent on Russian LNG, so not sure what you're talking about there. Also, seems like you conveniently forgot that Germany imports electricity from France where most electricity production is done using nuclear power

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/germany/electricity-imports-and-exports/electricity-imports-france

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (18 children)

Germany imported Electric from France during summer 2023, due to lower energy costs in neighboring countrys and high Co2 certificate prices.

In total, Germany has been a net Exporter for Energy in 2023.

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/germany/electricity-imports-and-exports/electricity-balance-france

And while Germany has been an importer from France in general, this switched in 2022 when France nuclear reactors had to be shut down due to a record warm summer, showing how nuclear is not fit to withhold the stresses of the climate crisis upon us.

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/germany/electricity-imports-and-exports/electricity-balance-france

As too your other statement I'd like to ask for a source. I found nothing pointing towards this.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1332783/german-gas-imports-from-russia/

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Last summer France imported large amounts of electricity from neighbours. Dry hot summer make rivers run dry which causes reactor shutdowns while demand is high because of airco. More solar in the french mix woild have filled the gap.

There is no 1 single magic bullet in the energy situation. It's an energy mix and always will be a mix. Nuclear is not the one magic fix it all today solution.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Meanwhile Germany has more than twice the renewables than the US (and still more than their renewables and nuclear combined), and is set to quit coal entirely by 2038. Still too slow, but how about instead of shilling the dangerous¹ technology that is nuclear, you start pointing fingers at those doing next to nothing to change for the better?

¹ not necessarily during regular operations to regular people. But since Germany doesn't have uranium it would introduce foreign dependencies, nuclear power plants are high value targets both for terrorism and state warfare, as seen in Ukraine. There is no safe way to store nuclear waste long-term. Mining of uranium is furthermore massively harmful to workers and the environment.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Everything we do is harmful. Using more coal is even worse. The very dirty coal that Germany is using worse worse. Depending on the method of mining coal, it is massively harmful to the workers. I don't think the method Germany is using is as bad as say the method the Appalachian miners used.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The UK hit zero coal in 2020 without even trying. 2038 is actually a piss take. If you used nuclear like France and China you would be able to do it much sooner lol.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Oh, it's bullshit, don't get me wrong. But nuclear is not changing that, the UK has less than 10% as well.

Besides, nuclear power station take a minimum of 20 years to construct, so even if we reversed course, we wouldn't have them running until the 40s. Contrast that with less than 5 for most renewables. Nuclear is also really expensive, so we could instead invest the money into a better and more flexible grid.

Nuclear is not the answer to climate change. Let existing plants run until coal is gone, then shut them off in favor of renewables.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›