"Nuclear power is cleaner [..] than fossil fuels in every way." Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere.
>Actually not every way though.. nuclear waste has to go somewhere. I don't understand your argument; of course waste must go somewhere. Nuclear power, with its waste, is still cleaner than fossil fuels in every way.
I'm not saying nuclear is worse than fossil fuels, just that we don't know the future impact of waste with such a long half-life. So I don't think it's demonstrably cleaner "in every way".
Don't forget that this is complety against current public sentiment in germany: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-sees-ti...
Then maybe they shouldn't complain about the nuclear plants
Anti-nuclear-people have mostly been a vocal minority. However, due to mostly anti-science reporting and irresponsible media-spread panic after Czernobyl and Fukushima, there have been temporary majorities for a shutdown, which populist politicians used to get (re)elected.
Unfortunately popular sentiment doesn't equate to scientific fact. Nuclear power is cleaner, safer and less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels in every way. Still, since when have politicians ever let facts get in the way of campaigning for power?
We are not choosing between nuclear and fossils - we have chosen renewables. Clarification: I'm not German. I'm talking globally and long term. What's happening right now in Germany is just a blip. The big picture: > Clean power growth is likely to exceed electricity demand growth in 2023; this would be the first year for this to happen outside of a recession. With average growth in electricity demand and clean power…
We have not chosen renewables: if you compute how much oil for transport, coal for Chinese electricity, etc. you need to produce solar panels, as well as massive mining impacts, you realise that the new renewables (solar and wind, not hydro) are a complete dead end with current technology. A renewables world made only with renewable end-to-end production looks more like the year 1800 than any Green knows or would be prepared to admit.
This was not decided by the greens only. From the article: > Yet the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 caused German sentiments to shift strongly against atomic energy once more, and Ms. Merkel abruptly reversed course. Her government passed a law to phase out Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors by the end of 2022. Similarly in the neighbouring Austria, nuclear power is prohibited in the constitution, not by a po…
Good politicians deliver the end goal people want (e.g. cheap and clean electricity), in the best way scientifically possible, then convince their base their method was the right decision. Bad politicians ask people how they should do a thing, then do that thing. It's been awhile since Germany has had good politicians where energy is concerned.
I mean at least they are currently trying to make and implement long overdue policies to fix this mess and speed up required processes.
Germany be like - let's do exactly opposite of what makes sense in today's world Green party is really ruining and I'm amazed people still give them votes
To be fair: Merkel (so conservatives and liberals) made the decision in 2011 after Fukushima in a move to align with popular sentiment.
...made the decision in 2011...
That does not mean the plan has to be followed through without amendment today - in fact, it cannot be, unless restarting lignite-burning generators was part of the original plan. Responsibility for this development lies squarely on all those who chose this path today (and regardless of party affiliation.)
They are probably being downvoted because they are pinning the decisions lead by CDU on the Green party. If they didn't misrepresent the situation they most likely would not get downvoted. Funny how that works, no?
The CDU may have made the decision but the Greens were in favor of it, were they not?
The German Greens were literally founded out of the anti-nuclear power movement. Yes, they're against it.
Then maybe they shouldn't complain about the nuclear plants
Anti-nuclear-people have mostly been a vocal minority. However, due to mostly anti-science reporting and irresponsible media-spread panic after Czernobyl and Fukushima, there have been temporary majorities for a shutdown, which populist politicians used to get (re)elected.
> Anti-nuclear-people have mostly been a vocal minority.