- cross-posted to:
- europe@hexbear.net
- europe@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- europe@hexbear.net
- europe@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Straight up misinformation. The nuclear phase out was already decided years ago after fukushima. This entire thing is just about a decision wether or not to extend the lifetime of the remaining 3 reactors in germany to counteract possible gas shortages due to russias attack on ukriane. And in fact their lifetime was extended for a few months to avoid energy shortages during the winter 22/23 which habeck decided against voices in his own party. The supposed “manipulation” is that a section apparently got deleted between two drafts of a document which contained the conclusion that it would be feasible to continue operating those reactors for a few years. Just, if you actually read the damn documents, this section never actually existed in there. What version 1 actually does contain however is the conclusion that wether or not its feasible to keep those reactors running for a few more years could not be made without consulting the operators of those reactors. Whats also in there is that all reactors lack the necessary safety certification for continued operation and that necessary staff was not available. The only real difference between those documents is the added conclusion in version 2, which you would expect to find in such a document presented to a minister.
document version 1: https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-01_Atomaufsicht_Version1.pdf version 2: https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-03_Atomaufsicht_Version2.pdf both hosted by the magazine that “uncovered” that entire “scandal”, so yeah, their own sources dont support what they’re saying
Complete nonsense. The phaseout was going to happen either way. This is only about the few months extension for the last three nuclear power plants and even there the evidence is more than flimsy.
The only complete nonsense here is phasing out nuclear power and opening up coal plants in a middle of a climate crisis. Germany is an utter disgrace of a country that deserves everything that’s coming to it.
If anything is a total disgrace it is the temper tantrums of the nuclear fanboys in recent years when their technology of choice falls further and further behind price-wise despite extreme government subsidies and building new power plants becomes embarrassingly expensive and long to the point where it couldn’t save us from climate change even if all countries of the world started building plants for 100% of their energy use 10 years ago.
Imagine bleating about government subsidies being expensive when we’re talking about averting a climate disaster. 🤡
Meanwhile, the one country that is building nuclear power at scale along with actually manufacturing renewable energy is where emissions are now in structural decline https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year
Not good at reading comprehension, huh? If something is expensive even though half of the costs involved are covered by subsidies the real costs are even higher which means nuclear is even less competitive if you took all the costs into account.
Funny how that story in various sources is literally the only place where the term “structural decline” appears (it is the whole page of top results for that term when searching for it), almost as if they needed to come up with a new kind of decline they could claim to have achieved specifically to talk about their numbers.
Meanwhile France, a country that gets most of its power from nuclear has had nothing but problems in the last few years.
Not good at reading comprehension, huh? Talking about costs in the face of a climate crisis is absurd. Humanity has to use all tools available to it. Meanwhile, Germany has already proven that renewables alone are insufficient, that’s why coal plants are being brought back online. Also, Germany is shutting down existing nuclear plants. The discussion isn’t even about building new ones here.
Funny how that story in various sources is literally the only place where the term “structural decline” appears (it is the whole page of top results for that term when searching for it), almost as if they needed to come up with a new kind of decline they could claim to have achieved specifically to talk about their numbers.
Funny how you talk about reading comprehension and then demonstrate that you don’t understand why structural decline is important.
Meanwhile France, a country that gets most of its power from nuclear has had nothing but problems in the last few years.
The same country Germany siphons power from in additions to your coal usage? 🤡
