111

IAEA chief says German return to nuclear power is 'logical' (www.dw.com)

submitted 4 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, called Germany's decision to fully phase out nuclear power "illogical," noting it is the only country to have done so.

Despite the completed phase-out in 2023, there is renewed debate in Germany about reviving nuclear energy due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at COP29, Grossi described reconsidering nuclear as a "rational" choice, especially given global interest in nuclear for emissions reduction.

Germany’s phase-out, driven by environmental concerns and past nuclear disasters, has been criticized for increasing reliance on Russian gas and missing carbon reduction opportunities.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 4 days ago

Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out it was a good thing, when the Greens phased out the last 3, it became a bad thing.

That's literally all this discussion is about. Anyone who's actually taken a look at the data knows that phasing it out was the right move and that there's no point in bringing it back. There's a reason the share of nuclear keeps going down in the EU. Germany is also not the only country that doesn't use nuclear anymore.

Here are the sources for anyone interested:

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago

It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it. Nuclear is the only viable clean baseload power generation option we have. Solar and wind can't do it, coal and oil are filthy, battery storage is nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 4 days ago

Bro has been asleep for the past 10 years lmao

[-] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 3 points 4 days ago

Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn't work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

"Baseload" is still needed. Renewables are great but they are simply not there yet. There is a world between "potential" and "available".

[-] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 4 points 4 days ago

Yeah, right now. But not in 10 years when the first npps could be ready. And you would also need storage for npps when there is a lot of wind or sun, cause you can't shut down the npps all the time or thermal stresses will cause damages to the pipes. And renewables are here now, it's the storage that needs to catch up.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] ValiantDust@feddit.org 27 points 4 days ago

I deeply wish that people would understand that this horse is deader than dead. There is no Frankensteinian experiment and no virus that will bring it back to even a zombie-like half-life. So would you, please, please, just stop beating the poor thing.

It doesn't matter anymore how it died, it's really time to get a new horse.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades' worth of nuclear waste we already have.

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.

[-] ValiantDust@feddit.org 11 points 4 days ago

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we'd have them by now.

That might be true, but how is that helping us right now? That's why I said it doesn't matter how the horse died. It's dead now. There are many faster solutions, why take the one that takes longest?

load more comments (15 replies)

[-] nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago

why do nuclear diehards always pretend it's nuclear or fossil fuels only, like renewables are nonexistant? it smells bad faith as fuck. nobody arguing against nuclear fission power plants are arguing for fossil fuels. absolutely nobody.

[-] remon@ani.social 3 points 4 days ago

FSS I hate discussions with people… You can do more than one thing. You could have concentrated on both nuclear AND renewables and stopped burning COAL - but no, instead Germany had a fucking uptick in coal power while dropping the much cleaner nuclear.

Relevant comment from this thread.

[-] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 9 points 4 days ago

But still false, because we had a short, small uptick while switching away from russian gas. Now Germany burns less coal than ever in the last 50 years.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen/2024/oeffentliche-stromerzeugung-2023-erneuerbare-energien-decken-erstmals-grossteil-des-stromverbrauchs.html

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 3 points 4 days ago

This article doesn't mention the most important part of all. Nuclear power only made up about 2% of the German energy mix. The power production lost by the loss of nuclear power plants was entirely compensated by renewable power and we also have the smallest coal consumption in about 60 years, so the shutdown had no effect on the German power grid.

The shutdown of our nuclear power plants was also planned since 2011 after the failure of Fukushima. Our government extended the running time by 1 year but it devinetively didnt had the power to just revert the shutdown.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

Note that the 2011 plan was the reversal of the 2009 extension plan, that was a reactionary reversal of the 2002 plan to phase out nuclear power until 2022. So the issue was the reactionary "lets make more nuclear! Oh shit, a nuclear plant blew up, lets track back on our backtrack" move by the CDU/FDP coalition of the time. Incidently the parties that also now are also crying to want back nuclear.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Hugohase@startrek.website 6 points 4 days ago

Propagandist propagandizes.

More news at 11

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] Zacpod@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.

[-] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org 17 points 4 days ago

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This "replace with coal" bs is straight up misinformation.

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.org 5 points 4 days ago

We didn't. We chose renewables over nuclear.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024

111 points (91.7% liked)

World News

39041 readers

2473 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.