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.
Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.
You tried, but it didn’t work out as expected.
Also, on a side note, with nuclear you could export energy to other countries so that they don’t need to rely on coal gas & oil so much.
We tried and it did and does work. Renewables are going up, fossils are going down.. We are burning less coal than ever. Any claims to the point of “replaced nuclear with coal” are disinformation and lies.
with nuclear you could export energy to other countries
We are exporting energy to other countries.
Nuclear is the most expensive form of power,. it’s unsafe and inflexible. It doesn’t make sense, it never did, and all those other kids jumping off the bridge don’t change that.
It actually worked better than expected. It’s simply a long process.
Snd until we have a good, permanent solution where to store nuclear waste that won’t be an issue for hundreds of future generations, it’s simply irresponsible to air for nuclear instead of renewables
There is a larger usage of fossil fuels than there otherwise would have been. A certain portion of new renewables replaced nuclear power instead of fossil fuelled plants.
So yes, Germany did prioritize removing safe, clean energy over removing dirty, dangerous energy.
Safe like Three Missile Islands, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Clean like Murmansk.
Fun fact, just last week in a supposedly safe storage site in Germany contaminated water was found. Nobody knows where it comes from and where it goes.
Such an attitude afflicts Australia too. We could have close to unlimited free energy, but instead choose to build more Coal since ‘Nuclear Bad’ and ‘Nuclear too much money’ (despite the same people decrying the idea of ‘too much money’ being applied to anything else)
Hmmmm, I don’t think nuclear makes much sense in Australia when we have an abundance of renewable resources available to us. Nuclear energy has never been known to be cheap and rapidly deployable. If we were going to go down the road of nuclear power we will have to start from the ground up given our utter lack of nuclear energy industry. This would take so much time and money. Why do that when we have sun baked deserts, are girt by sea and have every key mineral under the sun.
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.
Edit: Instead of just down voting, could you explain to me:
- How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?
- Who is going to pay the billions of Euros to build new nuclear power plants? The energy companies are not interested.
- Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades’ worth of nuclear waste we already have.
- How this is making us independent of Russia, our former main source of Uranium
I just fail to see any way how this could right now solve our problem.
- 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.
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?
It’s dead now
But what if it turns out we do need it in 10 years?
All renewable everything is cool, but that’s also going to require a lot of storage for the days where it isn’t so windy or sunny. I think having nuclear to cover (some of) the base load on the grid will be very helpful.
I never said that. But there are ways we have to do neither. Why not concentrate on those, especially since they are magnitudes cheaper.
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.
This was so foreseeable it hurts. Renewables simply aren’t up to the task of baseload generation yet in the way that nuclear is.
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.
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.
Propagandist propagandizes.
More news at 11
Because being addicted to the teat of Russian fossil fuels has worked out so well…
Russia also has one of the largest reserves of uranium in Eurasia as well, only behind Kazakhstan.
Also Germany would only trade one teat for another. Energy indepences is only possible by using renewables.
Lastly every energy corporation has said they won’t touch nuclear with a twelve feet pole because it is too expensive and there is no insurance agency willing to back them up.
The nuclear horse IS dead.
Unless you’re ready to fill the country with a thousand battery farms, you need some sort of steady base supply that solar and wind cannot provide. Hydroelectric is not really a big option in Germany, so that leaves you with coal, gas, and nuclear energy.
According to a 2024 article in the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, Germany could have saved hundreds of billions of euros and reduced its carbon emissions by as much as 70% by embracing nuclear energy rather than rejecting it.
Good job German Greens! Well done! 👏👏👏
They are like the right wingers: ideology over facts. I bet if the conservatives win in the next election, fuck some other parts of the country but manage to introduce nuclear again, the next green government will go about undoing nuclear, regardless of its benefits.
Ok you’ll have to explain how exactly that’s the German greens fault. They were not in power when the decision fell to stop relying on nuclear power. Even if they really wanted to there are no plants that are operational right now. We’d need to renovate old ones for a lot of money or build new ones for even more money.
Additionally the specialized workforce needed to operate these plants isn’t available. We stopped training new people for obvious reasons and it’s not like we currently have a lot of skilled people in unemployment that could be recruited on short notice.
And again, nothing of that has been implemented by the greens. This is the result of conservatives being in power.
The results of that article are at least highly questionable or straight up wrong though. The Fraunhofer Institute had a look at it, found wrong data and calculations and ended their response with
However, it does not seem expedient to make a detailed analysis of the data due to the fundamentally flawed method.
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:
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.
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 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”.
Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out
LMAO. Completely false:
In 2000, the First Schröder cabinet, consisting of the SPD and Alliance ‘90/The Greens, officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. The power plants in Stade and in Obrigheim were turned off on 14 November 2003, and 11 May 2005, respectively. The plants’ dismantling was scheduled to begin in 2007.
Fukushima forced the hand of the CDU afterwards.
It was a dumb idea in 2000, a dumber idea in 2011, and amongst the dumbest ideas during the war. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear people shot us all in the foot with their “what about our children in 1000 years” crap. So concentrated on the far far future were they, that they ignored what impact it would have on the near and medium term. Sure, the children in 1000 years might not run into nuclear waste, but they’ll be living in a climate change wasteland. Good job!
The phase-out practically already started in the early 90s, latest when it became abundantly clear that building more reactors was not politically feasible.
The reason is distrust in anything being handled properly. See Asse (they just discovered irradiated water that they don’t have any idea how it came to be because it’s actually above the deposit), see plants running without functioning backup generators for decades, the list is endless.
