well hey, at least they shut down all their nuclear power plants
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
36 points (97.4% liked)
europe
1809 readers
24 users here now
Includes Turkey, the UK, and Georgia.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
don't forget reopening a bunch of coal plant too
Unfortunately the right will use this as a weapon against renewables to try to expand burnable energy production again, and the lib center will eat it up as a "stopgap until we have a better solution".
I wonder if there's some kind of green base load they could be using ☢️
Nuclear isn't green
Considering the alternative is more coal plants, yes, yes it is. Germany shot itself in the foot by shutting down its nuclear plants, and now between that and shutting off Russian gas lines they're realizing they're in the "finding out" phase.
why not
Depending upon your definition of green, it has to be renewable. Nuclear is not a renewable, even if it has minimal greenhouse gas emissions.
That feels a bit like splitting hairs to me, but anti-nuclear folks do be wildin sometimes.
Idk much about nuclear but breeder reactors produce more fissile material than they consume, so technically renewable.
Good observation, but most plants that were recently decommissioned aren't breeder reactors. Recently decommissioned plants are more likely to be spun back up than new plants built. There's also efficiency concerns to be had in the acquisition of fuel and energy throughput of different systems. Though breeder reactors may be more efficient in terms of how much fissile material is required to put in, that may not be true of total inputs ("fertile" material, transportation/storage costs, waste water or solids produced). I don't know enough about the differences to opine, but my guess is it was found to be cheaper and easier to just mine more 235 than deal with any sort of challenge like those I mentioned as an educated guess.
Damn, do you even know who this is or what company he speaks for?
RWE is the biggest polluter in Europe and a promising candidate for the the source of the most corruption. Already 15 years ago, the newspaper "Der Spiegel" uncovered, they had over 3000 politicians on their payroll. And it goes way beyond this. Many laws have been made for this company. The "lex RWE" and other draconic laws give the police the power they need to suppress the protests of the inhabitants of the many villages whose homes have been expropriated to be swallowed, along with many ancient forests, by RWEs gigantic open pit lignite mines. These people are at the forefront of pushing Europe towards fascism and ecocide.
They and their lobby are also the people who have actively created the situation this hypocritical asshole is now lamenting. Funding for solar in Germany was defunded years ago destroying over 50.000 jobs. Research for batteries was gutted this year. The combination of solar and cheap solid state and Natrium batteries would have been able to go a long way towards stable energy supply.
By the way, that's exactly what China is doing, leading in solar, already mass producing solid state batteries and set to start mass producing Natrium batteries next year.
When these ghoulish servants of capital speak about "adding secure capacity" they mean big centralized, subsidized power plants, that are easier to profit off of, then a smart, resilient net with many small distributed sources with an intelligent mix of technologies: they want gas, coal, lignite, fracking, US imported LNG and provided the state pays for it, nuclear.
Concerning the later: The sentiment some people here have about nuclear energy has to be one of the most annoying brain worm inherited from reddit. I can't possibly extract that deep seated parasite in a single comment, so please just do your own research. Just a small rant from the top of my head:
Nuclear is the single most stupid, inefficient and dangerous way to boil water ever put into praxis using slightly warm ultra poisonous and radioactive rocks.
No one has ever build a nuclear power plant without massive amounts of government subsidies. No bank would give such a project credit. No one would insure it. Nuclear power has just never been able to compete on costs per kwh and the gap in costs to ever cheaper renewables just keeps getting larger. Nerds keep talking about the high energy density of uranium, as if that was a criteria for powering a nation. You know what it is a criteria for? For bombs.
And there you have it: the only reason nuclear power even exists at all is Imperialism. Imperialist countries needed it to develop and supply their world destroying arsenal of doomsday devices. Non imperialist nations regrettably had no choice, but to react by building up their own nuclear defence. Without the cold war, no one would ever have build a single nuclear power plant and without imperialism no one would continue to fund it.
Not to mention the off-loading of hidden costs on the environment, on people and on future generations. Without getting into it too much: Literally the only sensible way to ever store nuclear waste is to post armed guards around a growing number of highly secured compounds for basically all eternity. And even then it's not safe. Part of the European nuclear waste is just diluted, then discharged into the sea in northern France, slowly making life in the oceans on earth permanently worse instead of doing it faster in a more localized way if it was less diluted. Oh and also causing record cancer rates among children in the area. Mining the fuel for nuclear energy not only produces incredible suffering in the exploited nations, but also creates immense environmental destruction and considerable greenhouse emissions.
So please don't uncritically parrot CEOs of the most reactionary company in Europe. And don't fall for the liberal lesser evil argument of nuclear vs coal and gas. Both serve only capital, both are dying technologies and but a symptom of the old world dying, as the new world struggles to be born.
This is not an endorsement, and I'm not parroting anything uncritically. These are the people who own European energy industry and who will gauge as much as they can. What this highlights is the peril of privatizing basic needs.
I get it. I was quite tired when I wrote this yesterday, so I'm sorry if the tone sounded too rude. Still, I think the added context might be useful for some people.
Yeah, the context is very much appreciated. I was just too lazy to add a commentary.
In addition to my other comment: while the need for a stable energy infrastructure is real (and like I said real solutions are prevented by people like that CEO), the incident mentioned seems to be caused more by speculation at Europes energy exchange rather then any energy deficits. It's right there in the post: neither supply nor demand where unusual.