147

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

submitted 6 days 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 55 points 6 days ago

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 27 points 6 days ago

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 19 points 5 days ago

Bro has been asleep for the past 10 years lmao

[-] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 10 points 5 days ago

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 11 points 5 days ago

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 7 points 5 days ago

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)

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 4 points 5 days ago

Theres also power production from water and also using biogas plants. Those are two technologies being perfectly capable of supplying a base power.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 8 points 5 days ago

Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out

LMAO. Completely false:

In 2000, the First Schröder cabinet, consisting of the SPD and Alliance '90/The Greens, officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. The power plants in Stade and in Obrigheim were turned off on 14 November 2003, and 11 May 2005, respectively. The plants' dismantling was scheduled to begin in 2007.

Fukushima forced the hand of the CDU afterwards.

It was a dumb idea in 2000, a dumber idea in 2011, and amongst the dumbest ideas during the war. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear people shot us all in the foot with their "what about our children in 1000 years" crap. So concentrated on the far far future were they, that they ignored what impact it would have on the near and medium term. Sure, the children in 1000 years might not run into nuclear waste, but they'll be living in a climate change wasteland. Good job!

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago

The phase-out practically already started in the early 90s, latest when it became abundantly clear that building more reactors was not politically feasible.

The reason is distrust in anything being handled properly. See Asse (they just discovered irradiated water that they don't have any idea how it came to be because it's actually above the deposit), see plants running without functioning backup generators for decades, the list is endless.

[-] ValiantDust@feddit.org 56 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago

Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades' worth of nuclear waste we already have.

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.

[-] ValiantDust@feddit.org 24 points 6 days ago

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.

That might be true, but how is that helping us right now? That's why I said it doesn't matter how the horse died. It's dead now. There are many faster solutions, why take the one that takes longest?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.

FSS I hate discussions with people.... You can do more than one thing. You could have concentrated on both nuclear AND renewables and stopped burning COAL - but no, instead Germany had a fucking uptick in coal power while dropping the much cleaner nuclear.

This was so foreseeable it hurts. Renewables simply aren't up to the task of baseload generation yet in the way that nuclear is.

[-] ValiantDust@feddit.org 18 points 6 days ago

I also hate discussions with people who miss my point and argue against things I never claimed.

[-] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 15 points 5 days ago

but no, instead Germany had a fucking uptick in coal power while dropping the much cleaner nuclear.

You have a source for that?

Actually coal consumption is down to the level of the 1960s.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen/2024/oeffentliche-stromerzeugung-2023-erneuerbare-energien-decken-erstmals-grossteil-des-stromverbrauchs.html

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] nublug 14 points 5 days ago

why do nuclear diehards always pretend it's nuclear or fossil fuels only, like renewables are nonexistant? it smells bad faith as fuck. nobody arguing against nuclear fission power plants are arguing for fossil fuels. absolutely nobody.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Zacpod@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago

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

[-] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org 24 points 5 days ago

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

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.org 15 points 5 days ago

We didn't. We chose renewables over nuclear.

[-] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

You tried, but it didn't work out as expected.

Also, on a side note, with nuclear you could export energy to other countries so that they don't need to rely on coal gas & oil so much.

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.org 12 points 5 days ago

We tried and it did and does work. Renewables are going up, fossils are going down.. We are burning less coal than ever. Any claims to the point of "replaced nuclear with coal" are disinformation and lies.

with nuclear you could export energy to other countries

We are exporting energy to other countries.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power,. it's unsafe and inflexible. It doesn't make sense, it never did, and all those other kids jumping off the bridge don't change that.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

You could have exported more. It could have been a smother transition.

You are also trying to put words in my mouth, I did not say coal replaced nuclear.

Your fearmongering concerning nuclear makes me think that you are with the bridge jumping kids.

[-] Landslide7648@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 5 days ago

It actually worked better than expected. It’s simply a long process.

Snd until we have a good, permanent solution where to store nuclear waste that won’t be an issue for hundreds of future generations, it’s simply irresponsible to air for nuclear instead of renewables

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 11 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Hugohase@startrek.website 23 points 6 days ago

Propagandist propagandizes.

More news at 11

[-] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 6 days ago

Because being addicted to the teat of Russian fossil fuels has worked out so well...

[-] einkorn@feddit.org 21 points 6 days ago

Russia also has one of the largest reserves of uranium in Eurasia as well, only behind Kazakhstan.

Also Germany would only trade one teat for another. Energy indepences is only possible by using renewables.

Lastly every energy corporation has said they won't touch nuclear with a twelve feet pole because it is too expensive and there is no insurance agency willing to back them up.

The nuclear horse IS dead.

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 11 points 5 days ago

According to a 2024 article in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, Germany could have saved hundreds of billions of euros and reduced its carbon emissions by as much as 70% by embracing nuclear energy rather than rejecting it.

Good job German Greens! Well done! 👏👏👏

They are like the right wingers: ideology over facts. I bet if the conservatives win in the next election, fuck some other parts of the country but manage to introduce nuclear again, the next green government will go about undoing nuclear, regardless of its benefits.

[-] killingspark@feddit.org 15 points 5 days ago

Ok you'll have to explain how exactly that's the German greens fault. They were not in power when the decision fell to stop relying on nuclear power. Even if they really wanted to there are no plants that are operational right now. We'd need to renovate old ones for a lot of money or build new ones for even more money.

Additionally the specialized workforce needed to operate these plants isn't available. We stopped training new people for obvious reasons and it's not like we currently have a lot of skilled people in unemployment that could be recruited on short notice.

And again, nothing of that has been implemented by the greens. This is the result of conservatives being in power.

[-] FedditNutzer@feddit.org 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The results of that article are at least highly questionable or straight up wrong though. The Fraunhofer Institute had a look at it, found wrong data and calculations and ended their response with

However, it does not seem expedient to make a detailed analysis of the data due to the fundamentally flawed method.

Source

load more comments

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024

147 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39046 readers

2092 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.