374
Germans be like
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
374 points (100.0% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
2424 readers
49 users here now
#funny
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Because Germans choose not to built it being ideologically driven imbeciles that they are.
So now you're attacking a whole people, without offering arguments.
I've literally explained the argument in my comment. Germans CHOOSE NOT TO BUILD such facilities. The fact that you feel attacked when people state basic facts about your people is frankly hilarious.
Basic facts like all Germans are imbeciles? These are opinions, not facts.
Yes we chose not to build such facilities and that's why we should not produce more nuclear waste. This is exactly my argument you failed to respond to.
It's a fact that investing in coal while dismantling nuclear power infrastructure is not a sign of intelligent behavior.
Being in opposition to nuclear power does not mean we are coal energy proponents. We should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
What matters is what you actually do not what you say, and what Germany is doing is doubling down on coal while dismantling nuclear power infrastructure.
This is not true. Germany has pledged to get out of coal by the year 2038 and complete the switch to climate neutral energy production by the year 2045.
This is the official site of the German government on this topic: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translation of this page: 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
Completely irrelevant what proclamations Germany makes. What actually matters is what Germany is doing, and on the current path there's no way chance of meeting the goals Germany has set.
Why is that? 100% renewables is feasible according to studies. Germany has reached 52% renewables in 2023 and the goal is to increase this value to 100% until 2045.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307
Why is it that Germany is now building coal plans after many years of investing in renewables?
There seems to be a misunderstanding, Germany is reactivating old coal power plants, not building new ones.
This happened because we wanted to get out of nuclear energy. This started already in 2011. This was called the "Atomausstieg"(nuclear power phase-out) and it was supported by a large part of the German populace. Especially in the aftermath of the Fukushima meltdown, Germany wanted to get out of nuclear power production. This phase-out was finished in 2023. But when the war in Ukraine started the German dependence on Russian gas proved to be a problem. In order to address this 14 old coal power plants have been reactivated.
According to the current plans Germany wants to build 40 new climate neutral hydrogen power plants.
https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/ausstieg-atomkraft/ausstieg_node.html
Google translate: https://www-base-bund-de.translate.goog/DE/themen/kt/ausstieg-atomkraft/ausstieg_node.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
You're just splitting hairs here. Whether these are old deactivated plants or brand new ones doesn't change the overall picture which is that coal is playing a bigger role in the energy sector now. Also, what proved to be a problem was that US bombed a pipeline and Germany inexplicably chose to not use the remaining one while purchasing Russian LNG from third parties.
I don't think this is splitting hairs. New coal power plants have a life time of~35 years. Germany wants to phase out coal power by 2038. So when you're building new power plants, you don't plan to stop to use them in fourteen years time. But Germany wants to phase out coal power, so fourteen power plants have been reactivated for as long as they are not substituted by new hydrogen gas power plants, which is supposed to happen over the next years.
I mean you clearly believe all this, so let's just revisit the issue by 2038 when none of these things happen.
So your argument here is denial?
My argument here is that you're going to believe what you want to believe, and this discussion is pointless. When 2038 rolls around and proves you wrong, then we can talk.
That's not an argument, that's another personal attack.
The fact that you interpret everything as a personal attack is entirely a you problem. Meanwhile, I'm not here to argue with you. I don't need to convince you of anything, I don't live in your country, and I have no impact on the idiotic policies Germany passes. I'm just here to point out what a clown show it is for people looking from the outside.
I can see that you don't want to have a civil discussion with me, as you do not offer any arguments. You just seem offended that I point this out to you while actually citing sources and offering arguments to support my view.
I'm not offended by anything, and your sources aren't contradicting anything I've stated.
That's right since you did not state anything that can be understood as an argument to support your point or to undermine mine.
That's clearly what you believe, hence why there's no point to continue this discussion.
No it's not a discussion since you do not offer any arguments still.
Whatever helps you cope.
Hers a little primer on the differences of discussion and arguments: https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/1069/argument-vs-discussion
You were clearly arguing, while I was trying to keep the discussion civil by citing sources and offering data and arguments to support my opinion.
๐
Did you read that? Do you have a counter argument to offer? Are you willing to engage in a civil discussion?
Do you seriously think you're providing some new information I wasn't aware of and that I'm about to have some new revelation here as a result? ๐
Yes I do think so. My opinion is that you don't know how to have a civil discussion. I think you should read that very carefully, since you succumb to logical fallacies all the time and do not provide arguments or cite credible sources in support of your opinion.
My opinion is that you've wasted your whole day trying to have an argument with a stranger on the internet. And that's just not healthy behavior bud.
Again I'm not trying to have an argument. I'm trying to convince you to engage in a civil discussion. And I do think it's very healthy to support opinions with arguments and sources instead of evasion and personal attacks.
Again, those were provided to you a long time ago, and then you just kept perseverating. You seem utterly incapable of simply moving on.
I don't think you did. You resorted to personal attacks and evasion, without citing a single source or arguments to support your views or undermine mine.
IMHO this is not a fact but an opinion of yours. I for one think it's not intelligent to produce more radioactive waste without having a facility to store it safely for a long time.