What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the article?
"The older activist generation deliberately rejected the mainstream expertise of the time, which then regarded centralised nuclear power as the future and mass deployment of distributed renewables as a pipe dream.
This earlier movement was instrumental in creating Germany’s Green Party—today the world’s most influential—which emerged in 1980 and first entered national government from 1998 to 2005 as junior partner to the Social Democrats. This “red-green” coalition banned new reactors, announced a shutdown of existing ones by 2022, and passed a raft of legislation supporting renewable energy.
That, in turn, turbocharged the national deployment of renewables, which ballooned from 6.3 percent of gross domestic electricity consumption in 2000 to 51.8 percent in 2023"
Ah yes, the arch-conservatives, the Greens and Social Democrats.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.
2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it.
Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.
Compared to renewables, nuclear creates pretty much zero waste. The whole story of nuclear energy created less waste than one year of waste from solar panels alone.
Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space.
Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Toxicity I believe is about equal.
I generally try to respect other peoples religion but yours is threat to the ecosphere. I believe you know your statement is bullshit.
Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements
People opposed to nuclear know this already but why do you think that is?
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn’t at the moment).
Note: radiation is not toxicity.
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibley including ‘forever chemicals’.
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including ‘forever chemicals’.
If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner from chemical poisoning than radiation damage. People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to over exaggerate its dangers.
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?
Since they don’t have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation. If I remember correctly, solar is slightly safer.
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be:
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!
Maybe, just maybe, you should have read the Wikipedia article you linked. Not only did I lift that sentence from there it also explains physical toxicity. Sometimes you should read past the headline.
( Skipping the rest of the BS and jumping to the grand finale.)
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Oh, so you got your PHD from Youtube Universitytm - I didn’t know that! My bad, you win!
JK, I like to get my info from different sources including but not limited to actual professors of physics (e.g. Harald Lesch) and they don’t agree with mister Youtube dude.
As I suspected. Conservatism is the reason we can’t have nice things. Again.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even bother to read the article?
"The older activist generation deliberately rejected the mainstream expertise of the time, which then regarded centralised nuclear power as the future and mass deployment of distributed renewables as a pipe dream.
This earlier movement was instrumental in creating Germany’s Green Party—today the world’s most influential—which emerged in 1980 and first entered national government from 1998 to 2005 as junior partner to the Social Democrats. This “red-green” coalition banned new reactors, announced a shutdown of existing ones by 2022, and passed a raft of legislation supporting renewable energy.
That, in turn, turbocharged the national deployment of renewables, which ballooned from 6.3 percent of gross domestic electricity consumption in 2000 to 51.8 percent in 2023"
Ah yes, the arch-conservatives, the Greens and Social Democrats.
The activism of 1975 is the conservatism of 2015.
What do you mean? Don’t you think transitioning to mostly renewables while coal and gas go down are good things?
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.
Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.
Por que no los dos?
(en Alemans, por supuesto)
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.
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.
I don’t understand, you think we can build miniature nuclear plants for every single house in weeks?
My man probably played too much Fallout.
More details here, with proof links, etc https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519
Where have they been built?
https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519
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.
That wasn’t my question
The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.
All coal from the Earth has a radioactive component to it. Burning coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear reactor ever does. Fly ash from coal fired power plants contains 100 times more radiation than nuclear power plants emit.
The idiots on here apparently also think that burning coal somehow doesn’t create waste that will last for longer than humanity has existed.
Nobody brings up coal but nuclear stans and bots. You definitely put your favorite straw man to work.
Germany could have eliminated coal a decade or more ago. That’s an important point to bring up.
I agree it’s too late now for nuclear to make sense, but that was a lost decade of coal emissions.
It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.
You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.
There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.
The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That’s the whole problem.
2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.
Compared to renewables, nuclear creates pretty much zero waste. The whole story of nuclear energy created less waste than one year of waste from solar panels alone.
What is the toxicity and half life / storage requirements for each waste type?
Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space.
Note: radiation is not toxicity.
Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn’t at the moment).
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibley including ‘forever chemicals’.
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!
If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner from chemical poisoning than radiation damage. People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to over exaggerate its dangers.
For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?
Since they don’t have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation. If I remember correctly, solar is slightly safer.
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Maybe, just maybe, you should have read the Wikipedia article you linked. Not only did I lift that sentence from there it also explains physical toxicity. Sometimes you should read past the headline.
( Skipping the rest of the BS and jumping to the grand finale.)
Oh, so you got your PHD from Youtube Universitytm - I didn’t know that! My bad, you win!
JK, I like to get my info from different sources including but not limited to actual professors of physics (e.g. Harald Lesch) and they don’t agree with mister Youtube dude.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4aUODXeAM-k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.