Foreign dependance is just false. In own country produced coal is clearly less foreign dependant than importing uranium.
All your other points are up for debate and by far not as black and white or right and wrong as you seem to believe.
We are yet to see these fancy schmancy super reactors online in Europe. Just about every new nuclear construction site in Europe in the past 15 years has become nothing short of a financial bottomless pit.
Foreign dependance is just false. In own country produced coal is clearly less foreign dependant than importing uranium.
Once again, one doesn’t need to import and use uranium for fissile material.
All your other points are up for debate and by far not as black and white or right and wrong as you seem to believe.
State your specific counterarguments. Address my points directly. Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.
We are yet to see these fancy schmancy super reactors online in Europe.
Despite thoroughly well-documented European incompetence in energy policy, the need to import uranium doesn’t absolve Germany of its own hypocrisy in discourse about said policy and climate change.
Nothing is stopping Germany, and all NATO nations for that matter, in creating thorium reactors, save the aforementioned ignorance, incompetence, intransigence, and corruption. Thorium is abundant just about everywhere on Earth.
Just about every new nuclear construction site in Europe in the past 15 years has become nothing short of a financial bottomless pit.
1 simple search revealed the following:
Belarus opened Ostrovets 1 and 2 in June 2021 and November 2023.
Bulgaria has 2 planned.
Poland is planning to build a lot, the first scheduled to open in 2026.
Slovakia opened one in October 2023.
UK has 2 under construction at Hinkley point, and 6 more planned.
France has 6 more planned.
I think all of these use Uranium-235 fuel rods.
Somehow these countries can and/or have gotten the job done in the recent past and are actively building more. Germany, the largest, strongest economy in Europe can’t, for “ReAsOnS”.
British new reactors are by now more then a decade overdue and budget is spiralling out of control massively. So massively it’s causing the need for diplomacy between France (EDF) and Britain to get involved.
Same tendencies are in all European countries that tried nuclear project recently: way over budget and massive delays. Only France is somewhat better exception. Belarus is a dictatorship, if they say reactor go, reactor go. This is exactly what is meant with some fears surrounding nuclear energy. Chernobyl was real. It’s not a coincidence it happened in the USSR.
If I say ALL other points you made are not so black and white, I do not have the obligation to specify nor to elaborate. Things are rarely binary good vs evil in this world. Every energy source has advantages and disadvantages. Pro-nuclear voices are often blind for the risks, they are very tiny in possibility and very large in potential consequences at the same time.
Thorium, smr etc is still a pipedream at this point.
It is a valid strategy for a country to invest into proven technology like better insulating homes, optimising network, supporting more wind and solar and combining it with importing foreign hydrogen. This choice does not make Germany or other European countries retarded as is often portrayed. The mistakes are make in the timing, and in the reliance on 1 single foreign supplier (Russian gas), not in the fundamental choice itself to move away from nuclear. The move away from nuclear was very widely supported in German democracy. And it is valid to say this was an environmental choice: no, we don’t know what to do with the small fraction of very long lasting waste in the long term, a fact still ignored all the time by the pro-nuclear voice.
Same tendencies are in all European countries that tried nuclear project recently: way over budget and massive delays.
And yet, the countries that are developing new nuclear plants despite the hurdles all realize the fraction of greenhouse gasses in gigatons emitted vs. coal. All the sustainable energy sources and their delivery systems require energy (and a good amount, at that) to be manufactured.
I do not have the obligation to specify nor to elaborate.
No, you’re not obligated to say anything, but it shows the meaninglessness of the statement, “everything isn’t so black and white.”
Things are rarely binary good vs evil in this world.
I wasn’t talking about “good vs. evil”. I gave you the reasons why Putin, reasons that have been patently obvious to NATO in every publicly published intelligence briefing since 2008, invaded Ukraine.
Thus, citing not building power plants due to fear of Russian invasion is complete bullshit.
Simply put, why would Putin invade Germany if the Ukrainians deposed his puppet, and actively sought to exploit their territorial gas reserves and cut into his business? What’s in Germany for him? Rammstein airbase and NATO retaliation? Your precious coal?
Thorium, smr etc is still a pipedream at this point.
And yet many nations are rapidly developing them. India and China have active reactors currently. Not such a “pipe dream” if there’re working examples and a push towards developing them across the energy sector in every nuclear-capable country.
It is a valid strategy for a country to invest into proven technology like better insulating homes, optimising network, supporting more wind and solar and combining it with importing foreign hydrogen.
Once again, all of that needs tremendous amounts of energy to happen. And instead of using their already existing nuclear plants to supply it, they’re going to use coal (primarily) to do it while pressing everyone else to hit their emissions targets, akin to the hypocrisy this meme illustrated.
The move away from nuclear was very widely supported in German democracy.
Widely supported by idiots, hypocrites, and corrupt interests.
No, we don’t know what to do with the small fraction of very long lasting waste in the long term, a fact still ignored all the time by the pro-nuclear voice.
Yes, we do. And with thorium reactors, such operations don’t need to occur.
Reexamine and reassess nuclear power programs regularly, of course.
Shut everything down and burn coal, in light of the direction of the climate of our planet? And do that while publicly claiming how “green and clean” you are? And everyone else had better hit their emissions targets?
Go fuck yourself, Germany. Oh wait. You already did.
Foreign dependance is just false. In own country produced coal is clearly less foreign dependant than importing uranium.
All your other points are up for debate and by far not as black and white or right and wrong as you seem to believe.
We are yet to see these fancy schmancy super reactors online in Europe. Just about every new nuclear construction site in Europe in the past 15 years has become nothing short of a financial bottomless pit.
Once again, one doesn’t need to import and use uranium for fissile material.
State your specific counterarguments. Address my points directly. Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.
Despite thoroughly well-documented European incompetence in energy policy, the need to import uranium doesn’t absolve Germany of its own hypocrisy in discourse about said policy and climate change.
Nothing is stopping Germany, and all NATO nations for that matter, in creating thorium reactors, save the aforementioned ignorance, incompetence, intransigence, and corruption. Thorium is abundant just about everywhere on Earth.
1 simple search revealed the following:
I think all of these use Uranium-235 fuel rods.
Somehow these countries can and/or have gotten the job done in the recent past and are actively building more. Germany, the largest, strongest economy in Europe can’t, for “ReAsOnS”.
I’ve heard that Germany today has problems with expertise to operate nuclear sites. Not sure how much of a problem that would be, though.
British new reactors are by now more then a decade overdue and budget is spiralling out of control massively. So massively it’s causing the need for diplomacy between France (EDF) and Britain to get involved.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cost-edfs-new-uk-nuclear-project-soars-40-bln-2023-02-20/
Same tendencies are in all European countries that tried nuclear project recently: way over budget and massive delays. Only France is somewhat better exception. Belarus is a dictatorship, if they say reactor go, reactor go. This is exactly what is meant with some fears surrounding nuclear energy. Chernobyl was real. It’s not a coincidence it happened in the USSR.
If I say ALL other points you made are not so black and white, I do not have the obligation to specify nor to elaborate. Things are rarely binary good vs evil in this world. Every energy source has advantages and disadvantages. Pro-nuclear voices are often blind for the risks, they are very tiny in possibility and very large in potential consequences at the same time.
Thorium, smr etc is still a pipedream at this point.
It is a valid strategy for a country to invest into proven technology like better insulating homes, optimising network, supporting more wind and solar and combining it with importing foreign hydrogen. This choice does not make Germany or other European countries retarded as is often portrayed. The mistakes are make in the timing, and in the reliance on 1 single foreign supplier (Russian gas), not in the fundamental choice itself to move away from nuclear. The move away from nuclear was very widely supported in German democracy. And it is valid to say this was an environmental choice: no, we don’t know what to do with the small fraction of very long lasting waste in the long term, a fact still ignored all the time by the pro-nuclear voice.
And yet, the countries that are developing new nuclear plants despite the hurdles all realize the fraction of greenhouse gasses in gigatons emitted vs. coal. All the sustainable energy sources and their delivery systems require energy (and a good amount, at that) to be manufactured.
No, you’re not obligated to say anything, but it shows the meaninglessness of the statement, “everything isn’t so black and white.”
I wasn’t talking about “good vs. evil”. I gave you the reasons why Putin, reasons that have been patently obvious to NATO in every publicly published intelligence briefing since 2008, invaded Ukraine.
Thus, citing not building power plants due to fear of Russian invasion is complete bullshit.
Simply put, why would Putin invade Germany if the Ukrainians deposed his puppet, and actively sought to exploit their territorial gas reserves and cut into his business? What’s in Germany for him? Rammstein airbase and NATO retaliation? Your precious coal?
And yet many nations are rapidly developing them. India and China have active reactors currently. Not such a “pipe dream” if there’re working examples and a push towards developing them across the energy sector in every nuclear-capable country.
Once again, all of that needs tremendous amounts of energy to happen. And instead of using their already existing nuclear plants to supply it, they’re going to use coal (primarily) to do it while pressing everyone else to hit their emissions targets, akin to the hypocrisy this meme illustrated.
Widely supported by idiots, hypocrites, and corrupt interests.
Yes, we do. And with thorium reactors, such operations don’t need to occur.
Reexamine and reassess nuclear power programs regularly, of course.
Shut everything down and burn coal, in light of the direction of the climate of our planet? And do that while publicly claiming how “green and clean” you are? And everyone else had better hit their emissions targets?
Go fuck yourself, Germany. Oh wait. You already did.