Germany Quits Nuclear Power, Ending a Decades-Long Struggle

Post by moonchrome » Sat, Apr 15, 2023, 12:47 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #43

tuukkah wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by naasking » Sat, Apr 15, 2023, 12:50 PM UTC

locallost wrote: post #78

When this was announced over 10 years ago, the overwhelming majority of people concluded it's a shame they will be replaced with coal. Fast forward ten years and the use of coal is at a record low, the use of gas has not really changed in a meaningful way and overall the situation has improved significantly on its own, but especially compared to some other developed countries. E.g. the US is still at 60% fossil fuels…

Post by Filligree » Sat, Apr 15, 2023, 12:56 PM UTC

HyperSane wrote: post #79

cinntaile wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll have to properly frame your statement for it to make sense. Are you talking about one plant over its lifetime? How long is the lifetime? What kind of coal is burned in that plant? How big is the plant? Also we don't know about all the nuclear accidents, do you mean all known civilian nuclear power plant accidents?

Coal contains between 1 to 10 ppm of uranium. Globally about 8 billion tonnes of coal is burned every year to generate electricity. Thus between 8 thousand and 80 thousand tonnes of Uranium is emitted into the atmosphere every year.

Post by p_l » Sat, Apr 15, 2023, 12:58 PM UTC

Filligree wrote: post #85

HyperSane wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal contains between 1 to 10 ppm of uranium. Globally about 8 billion tonnes of coal is burned every year to generate electricity. Thus between 8 thousand and 80 thousand tonnes of Uranium is emitted into the atmosphere every year.

Which… I’m not sure, but that might be more uranium than would be needed in the first place to run our entire civilisation on nuclear power? Certainly it’s in the ballpark.

Post by locallost » Sat, Apr 15, 2023, 1:01 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #83

locallost wrote: post #78

When this was announced over 10 years ago, the overwhelming majority of people concluded it's a shame they will be replaced with coal. Fast forward ten years and the use of coal is at a record low, the use of gas has not really changed in a meaningful way and overall the situation has improved significantly on its own, but especially compared to some other developed countries. E.g. the US is still at 60% fossil fuels…

> Fast forward ten years and the use of coal is at a record low, the use of gas has not really changed in a meaningful way and overall the situation has improved significantly on its own Now imagine how much lower it would be had they kept the nuclear plants.