6 ms·
Nope. The numbers are such that Germany cannot go back on this. We are committed to the non nuclear path now. And that’s okay. We’re going to make up the lost t
by heckerhut 5y ago
Nope. The numbers are such that Germany cannot go back on this. We are committed to the non nuclear path now. And that’s okay. We’re going to make up the lost technology leadership in nuclear with competency in renewables. It’s fine and not the end of world.
I wouldn’t have done it the way Merkel did, I would’ve switched off coal first. But I understand why that wasn’t an option at the time. It’s what it is.
- emptyfile 5y ago> But I understand why that wasn’t an option at the time. explain
- stewbrew 5y agoWind and solar are cheaper than nuclear. There is no solution yet to the final deposition of nuclear waste.
- Zardoz84 5y agoYou know that are reactors that burns long life nuclear waste ?
- stewbrew 5y agoWithout any remainders? No? What would you call these?
- selfhoster11 5y agoThere may be a reduced need for final deposition, if the successive generations of reactors are good enough at recycling the fuel used by the earlier generations. I'm not sure what the limit for that is, but it might be possible to cut down on waste by a huge amount.
- Ygg2 5y agoYeah, you just build peaker plants to help renewables. What are peaker plants? Fossil fuels (natural gas)
- stewbrew 5y agoThere are other means to buffer energy.
- ketzu 5y agoThere was no significant public will or movement to get out of coal 10 years ago. It was never even discussed.
- hannob 5y agoThe renewables buildout was always tightly coupled with the nuclear phaseout in the political discourse. The idea that you could've kept nuclear, still have the renewables buildout and close coal early wasn't a political position anyone in any relevant position was advocating for.
- emptyfile 5y agoRight. It wasn't a political option. They could've done it, easily, and it was the sensible thing to do.
- IAmEveryone 5y agoThe slower phaseout of coal is about employment and, to a lesser degree, regional "identity" issues far more than energy. The coal industry was at some point the country's largest. It's also older than all other in the industrial sector, since coal was the raw material fueling the industrial revolution. As such, it became the raison d'etre for whole regions. The Ruhr area in west Germany grew from Iowa-level population density to New York State levels on coal. Unions, as a concept, got started in the coal mines. I recently saw a bunch of news broadcasts from the late 80s/early 90s and among 10 of them, eight or so featured labor issues in the sector. Until reunification, it was the most salient issue in politics.
- ivan_gammel 5y agoIt was right after the Fukushima disaster which was a last straw. Press coverage of nuclear energy by then was mostly negative thanks to Greenpeace and their campaigns against disposal of nuclear waste, history of Chernobyl explosion was still fresh, so politically keeping nuclear afloat was a risk. And of course, when calculating the real costs (i.e. including long-term nuclear waste storage and monitoring) it appeared not so attractive option to keep it.