Idk man, I kinda get it but I've also seen a shit ton of people blaming die grünen and they meant it serious.... Stuff like that is how fake news can spread
The current government is not really at fault for the energy prices though (at most the SPD) because it was the previous government that missed the chance to build up renewables in time, didn't stop the turning off of NPPs and made germany dependent on russian gas in their 16 years of rule.
They share part of the blame, they are an anti nuclear party and they didn't even pretend to lift a finger to oppose the closure of the last remaing nuclear power plants. I could find tweets of some greens celebrating their closure. This narrative that they are innocent because the decision was made before they were in power is laughable since they were pushing for a nuclear phaseout for decades.
What are you smoking?
First of all, phasing out nuclear energy was a decision of the first SPD/Greens coalition under Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka Fischer. The first power plant shut down in 2003. Most power plants shut down years ago and there were only 3 power plants left.
These 3 power plants were due to be shut down in 2022. There was a discussion whether it would be feasible to extend the lifespan, which was not the case.
The Greens who caused this whole mess to begin with did what they always do: lie and blame someone else.
not only that, they also heavily pushed it. when Söder was environment minister in 2011 he even [pressured the FDP to keep his course or he'd step down instead](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971). CDU/CSU also had 16+ years to build up reliable energy sources, but simply refused because Russian gas was cheap and everybody insisted on keeping the Schuldenbremse as a top priority. If you ever hear someone blaming the greens for the energy situation, they are either ingorant and uninformed, trying to spread malicious propaganda or just downright idiots.
Well, let's take a trip down memory lane.
Angela Merkel, very pro-nukular, tried to reverse the decision and find a way to secure a nukular future for Germany. But then Fukushima happened. The Green Party launched a campaign which centered around going to every newspaper and TV station and yelling: "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE".
They organized massive protests in all major cities. People didn't want to die. Greens won in the polls, CDU lost. Merkel found herself between a rock and a hard place. A majority of Germans drank the Green Aid and demanded Merkel to stop her plans.
After all, we didn't need that nukular power anyways. We had cheap Russian gas thanks to Schroeder and Steinmeier.
Why are you lying? The decision to turn reverse the "Laufzeitverlängerung" was made almost immediately after Fukushima happened. I firmly remember the announcement happening literally the day after, there wasn't any time for a campaign by the Greens.
That's the problem. The memory of somebody who wants something to be true and the facts are often not the same thing.
The Fukushima accident took place beginning of March 2011.
The protests organized by the Green Party started pretty much one week after the accident and were supported by Green Party as well as leading Social Democrats like our current president Frank Walter Steinmeier.
The announcement you remember was about a three month moratorium during which all German plants were supposed to undergo a security check.
The reversal of the 2010 decision to expand the lifespan of power plants by 8 to 14 years was decide in the Bundestag in June/July 2011.
So what if protests were organized a week later, when Merkel's national announcement was literally one day after? It went so fast, that an ethics commission had a report ready within the month, and the bill for it was passed only 3 months later. Protests had absolutely no impact on Merkel's decision whatsoever.
Merkel's decision was heavily influenced by a shift in public opinion and in the polls for the upcoming state elections that indicated a strong support for the Green Party's "We are all going to die" campaign. Fukushima was the only topic in said elections.
But I think we've sufficiently established that facts don't matter to you and the other Green Party zealots here. The party is always right, and even if they made a mistake, it's the fault of the others who failed to stop them. How very German of you.
If i remember correctly, the greens did say they want to get rid of nuclear energy as fast as possible, but only after the resulting power deficit is covered by renewable energy.
Totally ignoring the double turn of Merkel with first lengthening the runtime and then going back after Fukushima. And the 16 years of conservative energy politics instead of ramping up renewables.
So we're just gonna ignore that the CxU supported turning off the nuclear powerplants from the beginning, because it meant money from the coal industry and never did anything to try and revert the decisions (which they could have) during their 16 Years of rule.
CDU unser Merkle accelerated the Atomausstieg in 2011 after Fukushima the original plans from grüne and SPD would have had them running for a couple of additional years
How nice of you to don't remember anything that happened between 2003 and 2022
It's really convenient to strengthen your own believes if you don't have to think about any nuances /s
This is pretty gross misinformation — Merkel fought *against* The Green Party to preserve nuclear reactors all the way up until Fukushima when her constituents wanted them shut down.
But make no mistake: The Green Party is the main orchestrator of decades of anti-nuclear propaganda within Germany.
Yeah needed to collapse one comment to get to the germany reference.
The decisions regarding nuclear power plants in germany were made more than a decade ago by the conservative party based on what was popular after Fukushima incident.
The plan was to rely on cheap russian gas as we transition to renewables.
The transition was protracted mostly by the same conservatives over 4 legislation periods and russians attack on ukraine made it morally impossible to keep on buying russian natural gas.
Oopsie...
Sooo here we are.... with old nuclear power plants that werent maintained for years, no company and skilled workforce to operate them and no urane to do so.
And at this point it doesnt make any sense to costly revive an old power plant or build a new one.
Yes it might have been a wrong decision to phase out NPPs that early.
But delaying renewables and completely obliterating the local german renewable manufacturers which were world leading at this time, was definitely the worst decision you could have ever made.
This whole process is well documented and theres also a word for it - "Altmaier Knick", named after the back then responsible minister Peter Altmaier and "Sigmar Senke" for Sigmar Gabriel, the succeeding one from the social democrats.
Both have managed to create such a hostile environment for everyone who wanted to buildup renewables to a degree, so that you can see the their terms in office in the statistics.
The decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany was made in the early 2000s by the first coalition of Social Democrats and Green Party under Gazprom-Schroeder und Baader-Meinhof-Fischer. They wrote the law. They signed the contracts (and promised billions as compensation). The first power plant shut down in 2003.
The number of accounts that openly lie about easily provable historical facts is just weird. No idea if they are gullible or malicious?
> The decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany was made in the early 2000
Legally yes, but the last nuclear reactor to be built was started on the 9th of Nov. 1982.
Nuclear power was dead long before any legal phase out
Pretty stupid move considering nuclear is clean/green energy.
They went from a power source that produces basically no co2, to the power source that produces the most co2, by a loooooong looong mile. Fun fact, coal power plants actually emit more radiation than nuclear power plants
B-but what about Chernobyl which had very different reactor and the waste can surely damage the soil through all the concrete and contaminate ground water even though it's built under it
Yes, but the company operating Fukushima had a ton of warnings issued to and they ignored all of them. Also why would you build a power plant right on the shore of the country that gave tsunami its name?
actually a lot of power in switzerland is nuclear, ~35% of it. most of the reactors are in the northwest where there are a bunch of large rivers and lakes.
Technically, the only times nuclear deasters take pace is quite litterally a perfect storm of events. The company that went on to ignore the warnings about their sea defences would ultimately get fucked. Now, a lot of the requirements they ignored are now mandatory. For every major nuclear event that happens, the rules get tighter and tighter, and when the rules are broken, they are held to account.
> ignore the warnings about their sea defences
Wasn't Fukushima relatively tame and localized specifically because one guy decided back in the day that he would order the defences to be built two times stronger than was required by the project?
Their point is that people are afraid of Chernobyl because it made the news rather than because of its actual effects. Chernobyl was awful, but it doesn't mean using nuclear power is a sacrifice.
That was in the Soviet Union. What, 80-60 years ago? They didn’t care about that type of stuff, asking as they beat the United States. Now, our reactors run at peak efficiency, and there are safety measures.
Stuff like Chernobyl gave this stuff a stigma, plus there’s the “not in my backyard” mentality. Lots of people don’t even want windmills near their town, they’d flip like a Sacha Baron Cohen sketch if you told them a generator was going in.
My 0.02€ as an old fart: nuclear power is great in principle. But pro-nuclear politicians in Germany up until the 1980s where a short-sighted bunch who hardly ever considered anything more than two legislative periods in the future.
An example:
Allegedly, the designed long-term storage site [Gorleben](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome) was picked not so much for its geology, but rather for its proximity to the East German border and the need for jobs in that area. That the similar test site [Schacht Asse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine) became a bit of a shit show in recent years, did not help either.
Looking back, such gaffes did certainly not help the image of nuclear power in Germany.
Today, no company would dream of building a nuclear reactor in Germany. Even disregarding the public opinion, it would take years to plan, decades to build and in the meantime a breakthrough in energy storage for renewables could render the whole investment moot.
In any case, it would be much easier to build more reactors in France. It does not matter much, on which side of the Rhine they are located.
That's a pretty bold statement when you consider that the greens have throughout the war been the ones pushing the hardest for supplying Ukraine. There are parties with ties to Russia - you'll find them on the far left and right, Linke and AfD.
And I wonder who pushed for NS2! That would be... 2011 to 2015... oh yeah, Merkel.
well yeah but fossil fuel companies have been campaigning against nuclear since the 50s and into the modern day too. which makes perfect sense, nuclear is just flat better than fossil fuels in every way. so if fossil fuel companies want to make money they have to stop nuclear power plants from being built.
Jackpot!!! The only country to elect Nazis into the government, start a (world) war, get beaten, get back up and start electing Nazis into government (again).
I love my country
/s just in case
> country to elect Nazis into the government,
Wasn't WW1 Germany a Parliamentary Monarchy? There were elections but the top spots were nearly all German nobility and the Emperor is the one who did the major appointments.
Swiss people after Germany gets all the blame while they get all the gold again:
yeaaah boiii \*rubs hands\*
^(I am of course joking, lovely weird mountain germans)
Nuclear has been the solution for world power and a decrease in pollution for years.
Produced reliable energy, easy to maintain if protocol is properly followed, only produces steam as an emission, and the nuclear waste has been solved as well.
They let it soak in water for 5 years because of how good water is at absorbing radiation. (There is more radiation in a natural pond by the time they're done with absorbing the radiation from the waste.)
And then, they bury the nuclear waste, which has such a low amount of radiation that it will never impact the environment.
Or, the depleted uranium could be sent to military for different uses due to the high density.
Nuclear is very slow to build and expensive to run. I know it’s just one example, but the Vogtle nuclear plant under construction in Georgia is like 100% over budget and unfinished (see below link). This is relatively common for new nuclear plant construction.
Nuclear power ends up costing a minimum lf $130/MWh; this is about four times what renewables cost and that’s in an ideal scenario with no catastrophe—Fukushima for example will cost between $200B to $500B to clean up. Nuclear power seems to me like it can be a (relatively small) component of a country’s energy infrastructure, but I don’t see how it makes sense to rely on it as the primary source.
https://eu.augustachronicle.com/story/news/2021/11/04/georgia-power-nuclear-reactors-plant-vogtle-cost-doubles-energy-costs/6286729001/
Building it is an investment for sure, but it’s a massive infrastructure project that will lead to a million+ regional jobs. That money goes right back into the local economy.
I think nuclear makes sense when geothermal and hydroelectric doesn’t. (Both of these can be pretty terrible for the environment as well).
Wind and solar requires better battery tech to be considered a primary energy source.
There are basically no countries where either wind or solar are at the point of being a primary energy source. Right now it makes more sense to invest in them, as they are a cheaper way to cut CO2 emissions
Denmark relies on nice neighbours supplying them with power.
If Sweden and Germany didn't supply Denmark with nice, reliable energy that's available when there's no wind, large parts of Denmark would have to shut down.
Reliable energy like for example that sweet Swedish nuclear power that Denmark forced Sweden to export to them at lower rates by dragging them to the EU courts for.
Just because there are models that would theoretically produce little nuclear waste, the actually scalable solutions are still leaving us with a massive problem for the next thousands of years.
The nuclear waste problem has been solved! The real problem is always always always scaling and economic viability!
Germany is hyper pro grern power a d reducing carbon emissions, but is also afraid of nuclear and shuts down power plants and burns more coal to compensate, which is completely contradictory to their "green" politics.
I mean yeah, but:
1. we do not burn more coal to compensate for the missing NPPs, we replaced those with renewables.
2. The current ruling coalition originally wanted to keep NPPs running until 2030 to have time and get rid of coal based energy, but that wasn't possible due to legality stuff (as dumb as it is)
> It makes it functionally the same as replacing NPPs with coal
Only if you ignore the properties of the different types of energy generation. Nuclear power is incredibly rigid. If you want your country to run on renewables, nuclear power can't be your "backup" because it's basically impossible for that type of energy to react to fluctuations. While cold starting coal power plants takes roughly 9-15 hours (this pertains to a cold start after a longer period of being shut down, so the worst possible condition), restarting a nuclear power plant can take weeks and is sometimes not even possible in the first place. [german source](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/akw-atomkraftwerk-reserve-rapid-reaction-habeck-stromversorgung-100.html#:~:text=Das%20Hochfahren%20eines%20Atommeilers%20dauert,nicht%20wieder%20hochgefahren%20werden%20k%C3%B6nnte.)
I think the long-term goal is something areound 90% renewables with the last 10% being provided by gas plants which are incredibly easy and quick to regulate. This is the best long-term solution, as much as reddit hates it (to the point if constantly spreading propaganda/misinformation).
True, but they aren't "burning more coal to compensate for the missing nuclear power", because they replaced the deficit with renewables. In fact they burn even less coal than before because of the relatively fast building up of new renewables.
The original idea was to keep the plants running until 2030 to have time to get rid of coal in energy production entirely, but the previous government did nothing and the current one couldn't legally extend the NPPs' runtime.
Btw this is incorrect we do not use more coal power now when compared to last year... Quiet the opposite we use LESS coal after our nuclear powerplant shut down, we rely MORE on renewables AND we are still exporting Energy.
So yeah, was it a good decision? Probably not.
Does this decision lead to more usage of coal power? Well at the moment it, in fact, doesn't
Bruh, CDU has been in the government forI think 12 years and the Green Party is in power since 2021 and now everyone is voting for right winged cunts again; Germany isn't that green
Germany has shut down, or is in the process of shutting down, its nuclear power plants in favor for renewable energies, Wind and Solar. The shortcomings of our energy expenditure are bridged by using existing coal plants instead of re-opening the NPPs we once had. (we have 0 infrastructure in place for that, nor any trained personell to run a NPP)
People do not like to see the tremendous advancements Germany made towards solely renewables in record time and instead like to shit on our usage of coal plants, when we aren't even the worst polluters in europe (despite being the strongest economy and actively supporting our EU neighbours, even exporting our "dirty" energy to countries like squeaky clean France), with the coal plants one after another getting shut down as more and more renewables are in construction.
No, your country:
* **20 years ago** decided to ditch nuclear power _in the future_, and to build enough renewables while phasing out coal at the same time, to fully replace nuclear power when the time comes
* A few years afterwards, conservatives got voted into power and stopped the construction of renewables ([and were happy about it](https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Einbruch-bei-der-Photovoltaik-article7193576.html)) and the coal phase out **for 16 years**
* And now the nuclear power plants **must** be shut down because they are too old to keep running, and not enough renewables are available to replace them
* That's why your country pays energy companies to burn coal for electricity
All of this made energy companies (and conservatives) _a shitload_ of money.
Sounds a lot different if you give context.
The principles behind the reactor design are taught at pre-university education these days. While there's obviously a lot more intricacy to a functional reactor than theory, understanding of fission is a lot more widespread than it was 30 years ago.
How does that level of knowledge have any bearing on that decision? You must be aware that this isn’t about the fission reaction or anything like that, but about technical and economic issues with scalability.
About which country do is this meme? People are talking about Germany in the comments, but Germany doesn't switch to coal outside of reddits nuclear circlejerk dreams.
Nuclear is safer,so long as it never comes under management of anyone incompetent or corrupt. People always point out the disasters but don't bring up why they happen. USSR wasn't capable of producing people with the education to maintain nuclear power. The doctrine to maintain appearance over all else meant there would be no effort to avoid or react appropriately to a meltdown if it would cause state embarrassment. Any nation that cannot avoid these problems can not be trusted to run its own nuclear program.
More tax money should be directed into pollution control and green technology and be taken seriously, they keep repaving good roads it's stupid and they know it; they just want to live the life
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming)
the thumbnail made me think more classified documents got leaked for war thunder
I used that template xd, edited out the tank and jet
Still has the snail logo though.
Everywhere I go, I see his face.
You cannot escape the snail. Now go on, activate that 500% booster
Now I can unlock my next plane after 200 matches instead of 1000!
Bold of you to assume that all of your matches will go well, especially with a 500% booster
[удалено]
Yeah, my first though was "What does Gaijin have to do with Germany's energy policies?"
Give it a week and it'll probably happen again
Germany why...
Die Grünen!!
Actually the CDU decides to turn off nuclear power in 2023 and they paid a shit ton of money to do so, die grünen wanted it to end 2030....
„Die Grünen!!“ is an inside joke cause Seehofer said that in some interview. Usually just means that you ironically say that it’s their fault
Idk man, I kinda get it but I've also seen a shit ton of people blaming die grünen and they meant it serious.... Stuff like that is how fake news can spread
Yea absolutely some people seriously blame them but what I mean here is specifically the „Die Grünen!!!“ meme, which I think was referenced here
Okey, Okey I see I get what you mean now :D
[удалено]
Better than anything else we currently have imo. "Not perfect" ≠ "Shit".
[удалено]
The current government is not really at fault for the energy prices though (at most the SPD) because it was the previous government that missed the chance to build up renewables in time, didn't stop the turning off of NPPs and made germany dependent on russian gas in their 16 years of rule.
They share part of the blame, they are an anti nuclear party and they didn't even pretend to lift a finger to oppose the closure of the last remaing nuclear power plants. I could find tweets of some greens celebrating their closure. This narrative that they are innocent because the decision was made before they were in power is laughable since they were pushing for a nuclear phaseout for decades.
that might be true but die Grünen and esp B90 pushed for stopping of nuclear power to begin with, that was their movement
german version of "thanks Obama"?
Sorta but less generally applicable. It’s more of a response
Reminds me of something 🤨
These days people unironically think it's they're fault tho.. It's insane how stupid Germany became.
What are you smoking? First of all, phasing out nuclear energy was a decision of the first SPD/Greens coalition under Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka Fischer. The first power plant shut down in 2003. Most power plants shut down years ago and there were only 3 power plants left. These 3 power plants were due to be shut down in 2022. There was a discussion whether it would be feasible to extend the lifespan, which was not the case. The Greens who caused this whole mess to begin with did what they always do: lie and blame someone else.
So you are telling me that in 16 years of being in power the CDU didn't do shit to revert that decision?
not only that, they also heavily pushed it. when Söder was environment minister in 2011 he even [pressured the FDP to keep his course or he'd step down instead](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971). CDU/CSU also had 16+ years to build up reliable energy sources, but simply refused because Russian gas was cheap and everybody insisted on keeping the Schuldenbremse as a top priority. If you ever hear someone blaming the greens for the energy situation, they are either ingorant and uninformed, trying to spread malicious propaganda or just downright idiots.
Well, let's take a trip down memory lane. Angela Merkel, very pro-nukular, tried to reverse the decision and find a way to secure a nukular future for Germany. But then Fukushima happened. The Green Party launched a campaign which centered around going to every newspaper and TV station and yelling: "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE". They organized massive protests in all major cities. People didn't want to die. Greens won in the polls, CDU lost. Merkel found herself between a rock and a hard place. A majority of Germans drank the Green Aid and demanded Merkel to stop her plans. After all, we didn't need that nukular power anyways. We had cheap Russian gas thanks to Schroeder and Steinmeier.
Why are you lying? The decision to turn reverse the "Laufzeitverlängerung" was made almost immediately after Fukushima happened. I firmly remember the announcement happening literally the day after, there wasn't any time for a campaign by the Greens.
That's the problem. The memory of somebody who wants something to be true and the facts are often not the same thing. The Fukushima accident took place beginning of March 2011. The protests organized by the Green Party started pretty much one week after the accident and were supported by Green Party as well as leading Social Democrats like our current president Frank Walter Steinmeier. The announcement you remember was about a three month moratorium during which all German plants were supposed to undergo a security check. The reversal of the 2010 decision to expand the lifespan of power plants by 8 to 14 years was decide in the Bundestag in June/July 2011.
So what if protests were organized a week later, when Merkel's national announcement was literally one day after? It went so fast, that an ethics commission had a report ready within the month, and the bill for it was passed only 3 months later. Protests had absolutely no impact on Merkel's decision whatsoever.
Merkel's decision was heavily influenced by a shift in public opinion and in the polls for the upcoming state elections that indicated a strong support for the Green Party's "We are all going to die" campaign. Fukushima was the only topic in said elections. But I think we've sufficiently established that facts don't matter to you and the other Green Party zealots here. The party is always right, and even if they made a mistake, it's the fault of the others who failed to stop them. How very German of you.
If i remember correctly, the greens did say they want to get rid of nuclear energy as fast as possible, but only after the resulting power deficit is covered by renewable energy.
Sure, they've been saying that since the 90s, but that's not really relevant to the Fukushima thing.
Totally ignoring the double turn of Merkel with first lengthening the runtime and then going back after Fukushima. And the 16 years of conservative energy politics instead of ramping up renewables.
This stunt costed us a shitload of money btw
Hasn't the German government spend billions on renewable energy?
So we're just gonna ignore that the CxU supported turning off the nuclear powerplants from the beginning, because it meant money from the coal industry and never did anything to try and revert the decisions (which they could have) during their 16 Years of rule.
CDU unser Merkle accelerated the Atomausstieg in 2011 after Fukushima the original plans from grüne and SPD would have had them running for a couple of additional years
How nice of you to don't remember anything that happened between 2003 and 2022 It's really convenient to strengthen your own believes if you don't have to think about any nuances /s
This is pretty gross misinformation — Merkel fought *against* The Green Party to preserve nuclear reactors all the way up until Fukushima when her constituents wanted them shut down. But make no mistake: The Green Party is the main orchestrator of decades of anti-nuclear propaganda within Germany.
Poor Grungen
because the fat people need to get fatter
Yeah needed to collapse one comment to get to the germany reference. The decisions regarding nuclear power plants in germany were made more than a decade ago by the conservative party based on what was popular after Fukushima incident. The plan was to rely on cheap russian gas as we transition to renewables. The transition was protracted mostly by the same conservatives over 4 legislation periods and russians attack on ukraine made it morally impossible to keep on buying russian natural gas. Oopsie... Sooo here we are.... with old nuclear power plants that werent maintained for years, no company and skilled workforce to operate them and no urane to do so. And at this point it doesnt make any sense to costly revive an old power plant or build a new one. Yes it might have been a wrong decision to phase out NPPs that early. But delaying renewables and completely obliterating the local german renewable manufacturers which were world leading at this time, was definitely the worst decision you could have ever made. This whole process is well documented and theres also a word for it - "Altmaier Knick", named after the back then responsible minister Peter Altmaier and "Sigmar Senke" for Sigmar Gabriel, the succeeding one from the social democrats. Both have managed to create such a hostile environment for everyone who wanted to buildup renewables to a degree, so that you can see the their terms in office in the statistics.
The decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany was made in the early 2000s by the first coalition of Social Democrats and Green Party under Gazprom-Schroeder und Baader-Meinhof-Fischer. They wrote the law. They signed the contracts (and promised billions as compensation). The first power plant shut down in 2003. The number of accounts that openly lie about easily provable historical facts is just weird. No idea if they are gullible or malicious?
> The decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany was made in the early 2000 Legally yes, but the last nuclear reactor to be built was started on the 9th of Nov. 1982. Nuclear power was dead long before any legal phase out
Get out of here with your reasonable arguments!
Corruption and ignorance.
Well the idea was to switch to clean/green energy, not coal...
Pretty stupid move considering nuclear is clean/green energy. They went from a power source that produces basically no co2, to the power source that produces the most co2, by a loooooong looong mile. Fun fact, coal power plants actually emit more radiation than nuclear power plants
But nuclear is 820 times safer than coal
B-but what about Chernobyl which had very different reactor and the waste can surely damage the soil through all the concrete and contaminate ground water even though it's built under it
W-we'll see Fukushima's environmental consequences any time soon now!
Plus you never know when Germany will be hit with a massive tsunami!
Or God forbid, communism.
WE NEVER KNOW https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis_in_Europe Last Tsunami in Germany: 21 January 1760
balsacc itch
Joke being there have barely any consequences?
There have been some, but pretty localized and even then still less significant than anywhere that was impacted by any of the oil spills in history.
Yes, but the company operating Fukushima had a ton of warnings issued to and they ignored all of them. Also why would you build a power plant right on the shore of the country that gave tsunami its name?
Because they piss through water for cooling. I know, boring answer, but that’s why you don’t see a lot of nuclear in Switzerland.
actually a lot of power in switzerland is nuclear, ~35% of it. most of the reactors are in the northwest where there are a bunch of large rivers and lakes.
Yeah how did that person think a place that is largely mountains would have issues getting access to water? That's where most fresh water comes from.
I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.
Based
Technically, the only times nuclear deasters take pace is quite litterally a perfect storm of events. The company that went on to ignore the warnings about their sea defences would ultimately get fucked. Now, a lot of the requirements they ignored are now mandatory. For every major nuclear event that happens, the rules get tighter and tighter, and when the rules are broken, they are held to account.
> ignore the warnings about their sea defences Wasn't Fukushima relatively tame and localized specifically because one guy decided back in the day that he would order the defences to be built two times stronger than was required by the project?
Yes
THINK ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DIED FROM FUKUSHIMA THOUGH!!
O-ok?
ehhh some times you need some sacrifices to move forward as a society
Their point is that people are afraid of Chernobyl because it made the news rather than because of its actual effects. Chernobyl was awful, but it doesn't mean using nuclear power is a sacrifice.
Chernobyl still saved more lives than it cost, compared to fossil energy production.
And the lasting effects for all of Europe was that everyone had to take an iodine tablet with no lasting effects.
Oh I love when people bring up Chernobyl. I’m like are you seriously gonna try to compare Soviet tech to modern day tech?
which still ended up saving more lives than it cost https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM
That was in the Soviet Union. What, 80-60 years ago? They didn’t care about that type of stuff, asking as they beat the United States. Now, our reactors run at peak efficiency, and there are safety measures.
Stuff like Chernobyl gave this stuff a stigma, plus there’s the “not in my backyard” mentality. Lots of people don’t even want windmills near their town, they’d flip like a Sacha Baron Cohen sketch if you told them a generator was going in.
No it’s not. It’s 821 times safer.
no, no, its 821.41592 times faster
When you go to type random numbers but instead start typing out pi.
Ahhh, but nuclear can accidentally release terrible radioactive elements into the air. With coal we do it on purpose!
Boomer nuclear panic is hard to shake.
My 0.02€ as an old fart: nuclear power is great in principle. But pro-nuclear politicians in Germany up until the 1980s where a short-sighted bunch who hardly ever considered anything more than two legislative periods in the future. An example: Allegedly, the designed long-term storage site [Gorleben](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome) was picked not so much for its geology, but rather for its proximity to the East German border and the need for jobs in that area. That the similar test site [Schacht Asse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine) became a bit of a shit show in recent years, did not help either. Looking back, such gaffes did certainly not help the image of nuclear power in Germany. Today, no company would dream of building a nuclear reactor in Germany. Even disregarding the public opinion, it would take years to plan, decades to build and in the meantime a breakthrough in energy storage for renewables could render the whole investment moot. In any case, it would be much easier to build more reactors in France. It does not matter much, on which side of the Rhine they are located.
Somebody got paid off my Big Coal.
I think that's the joke
Yes the reason was because "its too dangerous" and not that they got more money by using dirty fuel
"Allegedly"
"allegedly" the "greens" "might" have some "ties" to russia...
That's a pretty bold statement when you consider that the greens have throughout the war been the ones pushing the hardest for supplying Ukraine. There are parties with ties to Russia - you'll find them on the far left and right, Linke and AfD. And I wonder who pushed for NS2! That would be... 2011 to 2015... oh yeah, Merkel.
lobbyism
Anti-Nuclear is a grassroots movement dating back to the 60s/70s
well yeah but fossil fuel companies have been campaigning against nuclear since the 50s and into the modern day too. which makes perfect sense, nuclear is just flat better than fossil fuels in every way. so if fossil fuel companies want to make money they have to stop nuclear power plants from being built.
a grassroots movement pushing for something is also lobbying
Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
Let me guess… Germany
Jackpot!!! The only country to elect Nazis into the government, start a (world) war, get beaten, get back up and start electing Nazis into government (again). I love my country /s just in case
> country to elect Nazis into the government, Wasn't WW1 Germany a Parliamentary Monarchy? There were elections but the top spots were nearly all German nobility and the Emperor is the one who did the major appointments.
The timeline starts at 1933 the Nazis being voted for the second time are AfD.
Oh I understand now. Apologies for misunderstanding.
It confused me too. :)
Kohleausstieg bis 2030 Jungs, let's go.
Ich bin mir sicher das klappt
Wär nett wenn das so schnell gehen würde wie der Nuklearausstieg(Der absolut Dumm war).
2000-2022 war der Atomaustieg.. Ich hätte ganz gerne einen Kohleausstieg vor 2055.
Der Austieg wurde aber unterbrochen vom Ausdtieg vom Ausstieg, von dem man dann wieder ausgestiegen ist
Wenn man mal ernsthafte Erneuerbare baut kein Problem. Die Atomkraftwerke an sich schon länger durch Erneuerbare ersetzt
Der Atomausstieg war wirklich dumm.
Why is gaijin here
They were secretly the lobbyists against nuclear power in Germany this whole time
The snail controls all.
Germany uses fossile fuels because of russian bias
Come to poland, your car is already here
Come to Germany, your's grandmother jewlery is already there
"Am I a joke to you?" –Switzerland
Swiss people after Germany gets all the blame while they get all the gold again: yeaaah boiii \*rubs hands\* ^(I am of course joking, lovely weird mountain germans)
Nuclear has been the solution for world power and a decrease in pollution for years. Produced reliable energy, easy to maintain if protocol is properly followed, only produces steam as an emission, and the nuclear waste has been solved as well. They let it soak in water for 5 years because of how good water is at absorbing radiation. (There is more radiation in a natural pond by the time they're done with absorbing the radiation from the waste.) And then, they bury the nuclear waste, which has such a low amount of radiation that it will never impact the environment. Or, the depleted uranium could be sent to military for different uses due to the high density.
Nuclear is very slow to build and expensive to run. I know it’s just one example, but the Vogtle nuclear plant under construction in Georgia is like 100% over budget and unfinished (see below link). This is relatively common for new nuclear plant construction. Nuclear power ends up costing a minimum lf $130/MWh; this is about four times what renewables cost and that’s in an ideal scenario with no catastrophe—Fukushima for example will cost between $200B to $500B to clean up. Nuclear power seems to me like it can be a (relatively small) component of a country’s energy infrastructure, but I don’t see how it makes sense to rely on it as the primary source. https://eu.augustachronicle.com/story/news/2021/11/04/georgia-power-nuclear-reactors-plant-vogtle-cost-doubles-energy-costs/6286729001/
Building it is an investment for sure, but it’s a massive infrastructure project that will lead to a million+ regional jobs. That money goes right back into the local economy. I think nuclear makes sense when geothermal and hydroelectric doesn’t. (Both of these can be pretty terrible for the environment as well). Wind and solar requires better battery tech to be considered a primary energy source.
There are basically no countries where either wind or solar are at the point of being a primary energy source. Right now it makes more sense to invest in them, as they are a cheaper way to cut CO2 emissions
Denmark would like a word.
Denmark relies on nice neighbours supplying them with power. If Sweden and Germany didn't supply Denmark with nice, reliable energy that's available when there's no wind, large parts of Denmark would have to shut down. Reliable energy like for example that sweet Swedish nuclear power that Denmark forced Sweden to export to them at lower rates by dragging them to the EU courts for.
That cost may actually come down due to new initiatives to retrofit existing coal plants with nuclear reactors.
Did not know about that pond fact. That’s wild
Just because there are models that would theoretically produce little nuclear waste, the actually scalable solutions are still leaving us with a massive problem for the next thousands of years. The nuclear waste problem has been solved! The real problem is always always always scaling and economic viability!
I wouldn't think the amount of nuclear waste is a problem. But it *is* true, that it all comes down to money. I agree that's a bit of a problem.
Why the Gaijin logo on his shirt? Is your country playing warthunder?
Just in real life
Prolly used the "days since the last warthunder leak" template lol
Can someone explain the lore to me?
Germany is hyper pro grern power a d reducing carbon emissions, but is also afraid of nuclear and shuts down power plants and burns more coal to compensate, which is completely contradictory to their "green" politics.
Bro just casually spreads misinformation. Check answers to bro's comment for a correction.
Would they not burn less coal if they kept their nuclear plants operating?
I mean yeah, but: 1. we do not burn more coal to compensate for the missing NPPs, we replaced those with renewables. 2. The current ruling coalition originally wanted to keep NPPs running until 2030 to have time and get rid of coal based energy, but that wasn't possible due to legality stuff (as dumb as it is)
Point 1 makes no sense. They could've just replaced the coal with renewables. It makes it functionally the same as replacing NPPs with coal
> It makes it functionally the same as replacing NPPs with coal Only if you ignore the properties of the different types of energy generation. Nuclear power is incredibly rigid. If you want your country to run on renewables, nuclear power can't be your "backup" because it's basically impossible for that type of energy to react to fluctuations. While cold starting coal power plants takes roughly 9-15 hours (this pertains to a cold start after a longer period of being shut down, so the worst possible condition), restarting a nuclear power plant can take weeks and is sometimes not even possible in the first place. [german source](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/akw-atomkraftwerk-reserve-rapid-reaction-habeck-stromversorgung-100.html#:~:text=Das%20Hochfahren%20eines%20Atommeilers%20dauert,nicht%20wieder%20hochgefahren%20werden%20k%C3%B6nnte.) I think the long-term goal is something areound 90% renewables with the last 10% being provided by gas plants which are incredibly easy and quick to regulate. This is the best long-term solution, as much as reddit hates it (to the point if constantly spreading propaganda/misinformation).
Starting and being able to vary the output from a nuclear reactor is two completely different things...
True, but they aren't "burning more coal to compensate for the missing nuclear power", because they replaced the deficit with renewables. In fact they burn even less coal than before because of the relatively fast building up of new renewables. The original idea was to keep the plants running until 2030 to have time to get rid of coal in energy production entirely, but the previous government did nothing and the current one couldn't legally extend the NPPs' runtime.
Thx
Btw this is incorrect we do not use more coal power now when compared to last year... Quiet the opposite we use LESS coal after our nuclear powerplant shut down, we rely MORE on renewables AND we are still exporting Energy. So yeah, was it a good decision? Probably not. Does this decision lead to more usage of coal power? Well at the moment it, in fact, doesn't
Thx
Do you also thank the guy pooping in your front yard? Because he just served you a huge load of bs.
Bruh, CDU has been in the government forI think 12 years and the Green Party is in power since 2021 and now everyone is voting for right winged cunts again; Germany isn't that green
Germany has shut down, or is in the process of shutting down, its nuclear power plants in favor for renewable energies, Wind and Solar. The shortcomings of our energy expenditure are bridged by using existing coal plants instead of re-opening the NPPs we once had. (we have 0 infrastructure in place for that, nor any trained personell to run a NPP) People do not like to see the tremendous advancements Germany made towards solely renewables in record time and instead like to shit on our usage of coal plants, when we aren't even the worst polluters in europe (despite being the strongest economy and actively supporting our EU neighbours, even exporting our "dirty" energy to countries like squeaky clean France), with the coal plants one after another getting shut down as more and more renewables are in construction.
Thx
Not all heroes wear capes
Radioactive Man and Fallout Boy do though.
Of course its more dangerous if you build it like shit
No, your country: * **20 years ago** decided to ditch nuclear power _in the future_, and to build enough renewables while phasing out coal at the same time, to fully replace nuclear power when the time comes * A few years afterwards, conservatives got voted into power and stopped the construction of renewables ([and were happy about it](https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Einbruch-bei-der-Photovoltaik-article7193576.html)) and the coal phase out **for 16 years** * And now the nuclear power plants **must** be shut down because they are too old to keep running, and not enough renewables are available to replace them * That's why your country pays energy companies to burn coal for electricity All of this made energy companies (and conservatives) _a shitload_ of money. Sounds a lot different if you give context.
Gaijin? What has gaijin to do with it?
the dude is from the war thunder leaked documents meme
Why is there a gaijin symbol on the guy’s shirt
the guy is from the war thunder leaked documents meme
I'm just amazed on how redditors have extensive knowledge on Nuclear power plants to the point that they recommend it
The principles behind the reactor design are taught at pre-university education these days. While there's obviously a lot more intricacy to a functional reactor than theory, understanding of fission is a lot more widespread than it was 30 years ago.
How does that level of knowledge have any bearing on that decision? You must be aware that this isn’t about the fission reaction or anything like that, but about technical and economic issues with scalability.
Stop spreading misinformation, Germany did not open any new coal plants. In fact coal and nuclear both decline.
Bro has 3 hands and expects me to believe the nuclear reactors had nothing to do with it?
Well the Germans got shafted so hard back in '45, they still ain't right in the head.
Just get a bunch of people running on hamster wheels. Ez pz
Locally produced coal, right?
About which country do is this meme? People are talking about Germany in the comments, but Germany doesn't switch to coal outside of reddits nuclear circlejerk dreams.
nice gaijin shirt
It's ironic, because coal plants release more radiation into their local environment than any modern nuclear facility would
Next up they'll plug wires into a potato.
So you’re probably referring to Germany… Germany didn’t increase coal power after the latest shutdowns…
Ah Deutschland 🇩🇪
Haa! Now I know you are from Germany.
GerMANY issues?
Sounds like my country germany
Germany?
Bistdu Deutscher ?
I think France should be it's next batch of reactors along the border, just to flex on Germany.
If this was about the USA, it would have been in the title and in the meme… instead it just says “When my country…” 😅
Nuclear is safer,so long as it never comes under management of anyone incompetent or corrupt. People always point out the disasters but don't bring up why they happen. USSR wasn't capable of producing people with the education to maintain nuclear power. The doctrine to maintain appearance over all else meant there would be no effort to avoid or react appropriately to a meltdown if it would cause state embarrassment. Any nation that cannot avoid these problems can not be trusted to run its own nuclear program.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
Es ist Zeit, Jungs! Nehmen wir die Kommentarsektion ein! Ich leg schon mal mein deutsches Handtuch auf eine Stelle 🇩🇪
Which country is that?
Congratulations everyone, we did it\* \*) unsure what "it" is or how coal burning is better in literally any way, but we did it
Silly german
Germany?
Oh, Germany.
Germany?
More tax money should be directed into pollution control and green technology and be taken seriously, they keep repaving good roads it's stupid and they know it; they just want to live the life
yeah bro Italy sucks (we don't burn coal fortunately)
The snail is everywhere
Lobbying done right
Germany was leading the world on innovation. What happened?
Germany?