• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nuclear is affordable, efficient and proven. Abandoning it instead of promoting it was a dumb, conservative move that hurt everyone involved. Except Russian billionaires, of course.

    • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.

      • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        They already had it and it was working just fine. They tore it down and went full coal and some gas. Now wind and solar are taking over slowly, but it’s been years with more pollution and more radiation than any already working nuclear plant would have emmited.

        • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s true. The original plans for phasing out nuclear energy encompassed huge investments in renewable energy. The government Merkel II then decided to keep using nuclear and not invest in renewables, then decided a year later to leave nuclear again without investing in renewables. That little maneuver not only cost huge amounts of compensation for the big energy companies but also nuked (haha) the German wind and solar industry to the ground.

            • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              The old reactors could have been used until their end of life, yes. The effects are exaggerated though. Nobody was going to build new ones. Not even France who rely heavily on nuclear energy has new reactors.

      • discount_door_garlic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry. In other countries with no nuclear infrastructure, renewables are definitely the better, cheaper, more scalable choice - but countries which invested big many decades ago are in a different position, and Germany’s deliberate destruction of their nuclear capabilities has left them dependant on fossil fuels from an adversarial state - easily a worse situation than small amounts of carefully managed nuclear waste while renewables were scaled up.

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry.

          Shhh… anti-nuclear don’t want to hear this. They’d rather project, even though people are talking about how stupid closing down the current nuclear infrastructure and not advocating to build new ones!

          I don’t support building new nuclear power plants, but it’s ridiculous to close down already existing ones given the threat of climate change. NPP should act more like stop gap until renewable energy can take over more effectively.

          • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I answered a very similar comment a little further down:

            https://feddit.de/comment/9599367

            I’m not claiming it was smart to leave nuclear before coal. It wasn’t. But it is what happened and it was decided two decades ago. Nuclear is done in Germany and there is no point discussing it further. New reactors were not going to happen either way.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Nuclear is only expensive and slow if you’re building reactors from 1960-s. Modern micro- and nano-reactors can be put in every yard in a matter of months if not weeks.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t understand, you think we can build miniature nuclear plants for every single house in weeks?

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Except they do exist. Almost. First SMRs were scheduled to be deployed right about, but the pandemic fucked it up. The project is back on track though.

            MNR study was finished in 2019, right before the pandemic. Feasibility was also finished during the pandemic and the development grants were awarded.

            Nano-reactors are still a future, sadly, but if the investments will keep up it won’t be long.

            • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              It won’t have been long for a long time now. It’s not a feasible concept to rely on a maybe. We need massive amounts of clean energy now and the way to do that now is water, wind and solar. If these wonder reactors are one day reality that’s great.

              • Aux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                The problem is that instead of investing into dumb renewables, we should’ve invested in nuclear decades ago. Now we have to play catch up.

                • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  France is a good example. They invest billions in their nuclear power. Still, their infrastructure is old and they can’t seem to build new reactors. It’s a money sink while “dumb renewables” are the cheapest most spammable energy source we ever had.