r/YUROP • u/HumorBoomer Support Our Remainer Brothers And Sisters • 9d ago
Sorry not sorry Ecologic Union
369
u/Light-Delablue France 9d ago
Ah shit here we go again .can we act like a union ? We can brrrrr Nuke in winter here so we can export to Germany . And in sumer we can do the reverse .
79
u/Ein_Hirsch Yuropean 9d ago
It is nice to know that we can count at least on some on this sub to keep the Yuropean spitit going
→ More replies (9)37
u/DildoRomance Česko 9d ago
You don't need so much energy in the summer, so it's not really a fair trade for how much more we would need to invest into the power plants compared to the Germans.
And still, I wouldn't mind sharing if the German public was somewhat reasonable and acknowledged that their current models suck and pledged to improve things. But instead they doubled down on it.
69
u/Sn_rk Hamburg 9d ago
The high point of German power generation is not in summer though. It's almost always during storm season in fall and winter, the solar capacity is just to cover the relative lack of wind during summer.
18
u/heyutheresee Suomi 9d ago
Soon it will be different. Germany is installing a gigawatt of solar every month now, compared to just a couple hundred megawatts of wind. https://energy-charts.info/charts/installed_power/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&interval=month&expansion=installation_decommission
13
u/Sn_rk Hamburg 9d ago
It's worth mentioning that in the next two years most of the larger offshore wind projects are coming online though, so that may even out over time.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (14)3
u/notaredditer13 9d ago
Note though that Germany's solar capacity factor is only 10% whereas wind is up to 35% depending on where (offshore is better). So the difference is not so dramatic as it seems when you use capacity.
→ More replies (1)3
u/NotARealHuman88 Nordrhein-Westfalen 9d ago
In summer there’s a massive amount of solar power here though, there’s less wind but it makes up for it
32
u/HoblinGob 9d ago
I mean if you guys could finally acknowledge that we are talking about a mere 6% of our production, then maybe you'd get your wish.
52
u/RedAlpacaMan 9d ago edited 9d ago
Or that the decision was done over 10 years ago, a majority of the public is in favour of keeping the NPP's running, but thats simply not possible because theres no new fuel, no new technicians, and the reactors haven't been maintained properly in years.
But hey, r/europe needs its daily thread with +1000 Karma, where people read the words "Germany" and "nuclear" and go apeshit, ignoring that we're actually doing something to get out of coal while half of europe does fuck-all.
(Meanwhile Czechia's electricity is roughly 30% dirtier, and don't even get me started on the constant black smoke and coughing noises coming from east of the Oder)
13
u/Polchar 9d ago
Hey, Finland has olkiluoto 3 now! Oh wait, it has an issue again and is not running...
5
u/_teslaTrooper Nederland 9d ago
But soon they will have Hanhikivi! oh wait that was gonna be built by Rosatom and got canceled.
3
6
u/chasetheusername 9d ago
Or that the decision was done over 10 years ago
Imagine what could've been done, if building renewables had actually been focused on since that point in time.
→ More replies (3)3
→ More replies (40)8
u/AgitatedRabbits 9d ago
Fair points, but cmmon, you dont get to compare yourself to Czechia, you are only allowed to compare yourself to equally rich or richer countries, otherwise we can compare ourselves to Turkmenistan and chug along like chads.
→ More replies (2)8
u/RedAlpacaMan 9d ago
They're not a third world country, and economically similar countries (Baltics, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia) are much cleaner.
But this wasn't supposed to belittle them, I simply wanted to point out how theres a double standard when talking about electricity in Germany versus other countries.
compare ourselves to Turkmenistan
2
u/kAy- 9d ago
theres a double standard when talking about electricity in Germany versus other countries.
Because Germany is pretty much the European leader, and even if you argue that its not, that's how it's seen.
6
u/RedAlpacaMan 9d ago
Its funny how that whole "european leader" thing only gets brought up when its about people wanting France or Germany to behave a certain way.
2
u/Schootingstarr 9d ago
we've had a "let's sit on the problem and ignore it for now. let the next government deal with it" government with Merkel
and now the new government has to clean up 16 years of not doing jack shit. and the funniest part? The leading party was part of the previous government for a full 3 out of 4 legislative periods as well!
→ More replies (17)18
u/Tobiassaururs 9d ago
Stop with the facts, those are not allowed in these discussions
8
u/HoblinGob 9d ago
Yea I noticed that. Weird how certain parts of Reddit just have the simplest of views.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Ar_phis 9d ago
You could have just read the actual plan.
The current increase in coal power is under the condition of closing more coal power plants earlier. A lot of the capacity is going to shut down in 2030 instead of previously planned 2038, reducing the total amount of emissions.
Germany also renewed legislation for a faster construction of renewables.
Everything you ask for in your last paragraph is being done. Sadly, some comments against coal share the superficial information equal to the supporters of coal.
16
u/Johanneskodo 9d ago edited 9d ago
Germany has been exporting more elictricity than they import for years.
Also your country uses more coal than Germany does.
The Czech energy mix was made up of 53.60 percent fossil fuels (47.50 percent lignite, 5.86 percent natural gas, etc.), 40.95 percent nuclear power, and 5.46 percent renewables
Germany sits at around 27% Coal and 14% Gas. You at around 47% Coal and 6% Gas.
→ More replies (6)22
u/AstroAndi 9d ago
Bro, germany exports a heck of a lot more power to France than France does to Germany lol
22
u/AppearanceAny6238 9d ago
As a tip the people discussing here don't care about facts at all they will start to argue tomorrow again using some opinion they have just don't waste your time on them ;)
→ More replies (22)3
u/yyytobyyy Yuropean 9d ago
The whole "Germany saved France" is a lie and misinformation not based on facts. Kinda ignorant of you.
3
u/Ooops2278 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yes, it is not true because in the end France didn't need the saving as they they got their issues sorted out before winter.
But what is true is that a) Germany (and Spain and UK and some others to a lesser degree) did not reduce their gas use in electricity production compared to earlier years right in the middle of a gas crisis because they constantly exported huge amounts through the summer/autumn and that b) Germany kept nuclear reactors running for a few additional months just for one single scenario: the possibility that France wouldn't be able to fix their issues in time. And yet the latter was instantly twisted by the nuclear cult to "lol they want to shut down nuclear but can't because they are afraid to freeze" (the fact that electricity and heating aren't even connected in Germany makes this doubly rediculous) and "see, they could run them longer. They are just lying about them being old and having no fuel!" (again contrary to actual reality where they only used exhausted fuel rods beyond their normal use in case of an emergency and then would have needed to magically run them on thin air, believe and fairy dust until an order for new fuel rods would have been delivered years later).
→ More replies (16)6
u/yyytobyyy Yuropean 9d ago
This was true only during the summer 2022 when France was massively maintaining the power plants. And it was not "lot more". France was still able to sustain 90% of their consumption and half of the imports were from other countries than Germany.
This year, France is net exporter again. So please learn the actual numbers and stop spreading misinformation.
3
u/Sage_Nein 9d ago
If you look at this source here, you will find that since 2015 (the available data starts there) Germany exported more to France than the other way around. Up to today, this is not yet true for this year, but may change due to the typically high availability of wind power in the winter months.
But yes, both France (apart from 2022) and Germany have been net exporters of electricity. There are more countries in Europe than those two. One should also keep in mind that most of the time imports/exports are not because of necessity, but because it is cheaper to import the energy than produce it oneself.
→ More replies (2)7
u/andara84 9d ago
First, France does need a lot of power in summer because it's hot and ACs are running, and because nuclear plants are shutting down because the rivers used for chilling are getting too warm. Second, Germany has imported less than 2% of their electricity since the shutdown of the last nuclear power plants in April. That's close to nothing. Construction of renewables is on a way better path than projected, so next year, the percentage will be zero. Most countries, including Germany, are able to produce more than needed, but companies are buying where it's cheapest. And believe me, everything is more expensive than PV it wind turbines.
→ More replies (5)7
u/sequeezer Yuropean 9d ago edited 9d ago
With the knowledge and workforce that has experience gone, the realistic time frame to even built a nuclear reactor, the exorbitant costs and generell lack of will to built new nuclear reactors around the world - what does mr. Easy solutions propose from the nation that doubled down and pledged to get serious about renewables?
Also this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/s/ULzL4GDQRF
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (26)2
u/_shellsort_ 9d ago
What do you mean it's not a fair trade? You're aware we wouldn't exchange energy without money as an intermediary, right?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (20)2
u/NotAnAIOrAmI 9d ago
We can brrrrr Nuke in winter here so we can export to Germany
That makes sense and should be done. Germany may just be reluctant because of the deserved snark that will come with it.
"Ah, Germany, your energy choices are always so... refreshingly innovative. We're always eager to see what you'll come up with next."
266
u/bond0815 9d ago edited 9d ago
Isnt germany still planning to phase out coal faster than half of europe?
182
u/MK-Neron 9d ago
Yes it is. And thats why this in my opinion is false. There are no new coal plants to be build. Don‘t know where this information has it sources.
→ More replies (69)60
u/1rubyglass Uncultured 9d ago
This is just a typical Chinese propaganda campaign to take the heat off themselves.
10
u/Cryptoporticus 9d ago
China's reason for approving new plants is the same as Germany's.
Both countries are on track to phase out coal very quickly compared to the rest of the world, but they still need to use coal in the meantime.
→ More replies (9)3
u/Cobek 9d ago
Germany said by 2038. China said by 2060. Big difference. Especially considering China's total output.
I'll believe it when I see it. China hasn't even reached its peak coal consumption yet (it estimates by 2030).
6
u/SignificanceBulky162 9d ago
Because Germany is ready a highly developed economy that has been polluting for centuries, whereas China only mainly started industrializing 40 years ago
12
u/TheRedBaron6942 9d ago
It's all propaganda. Governments and companies tell us it's the people heating the world up, when the vast majority of emissions come from a few companies in a few countries
→ More replies (27)3
→ More replies (28)4
u/Alternative_Way_313 9d ago
Okay I’m gonna need you to substantiate this claim buddy
11
u/Caerys_ 9d ago
Do you not think the op should substantiate the claim as well
→ More replies (4)5
9d ago
Nobody said that?
Insert You can say 'i like pancakes' and someone will reply 'so why do you hate waffles' meme
→ More replies (18)3
91
u/nibbler666 9d ago
Yes. But reddit is full of bots that want to sow discord in the EU and people fall for it. Attacking Germany is the most efficient way to weaken the EU.
→ More replies (4)58
u/Ein_Hirsch Yuropean 9d ago
Notice how this is a post spreading narratives of anti-european parties with 7,5k upvotes yet the comments are full with people disagreeing while only having less than 400 upvotes? Yeah this is a bot attack
32
u/The-Berzerker Yuropean 9d ago
Lol for real, 13k upvotes after 2h is insane for a sub this size
17
u/Ein_Hirsch Yuropean 9d ago
You're right. I reported the post to r/YUROP mods so that they might look into it. So much is fishy about this post and the poster
8
u/The-Berzerker Yuropean 9d ago
15k now wtf lmao
→ More replies (1)4
u/Ruthlessrabbd 9d ago
4.6K more in less than 30 minutes
This popped up on my feed and I do not follow any subreddits like this
→ More replies (2)2
u/anaraqpikarbuz 9d ago
Most people (90%+) lurk/upvote/downvote and don't comment. And this hit r/all you dumbkopfs. So not necessarily bots. It's just good bait - rich western country burns coal because of stupid nuclear energy politics combined with a funny South Park meme (Germany isn't really sorry, just doing what needs to be done).
3
u/AppearanceAny6238 9d ago
Don't underestimate how stupid people can be and how much they can be indoctrinated by their goverments and media (looking at you Poland and Hungary).
7
u/Ein_Hirsch Yuropean 9d ago
Yet this sub's community isn't standing nehind this post as can be seen by the comments. So where do the thousands of upvotes come from. I usually am opposed to conspiracy theories but the usage of botting in political subs should never be underestimated
3
u/MeMoses 9d ago
I have never visited or seen this sub but got this recommended in my feed. Maybe that's a reason for some additional traffic.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)3
u/SEND-MARS-ROVER-PICS 9d ago
Hell i don't subscribe to this subreddit, this is literally the #2 post on /r/all right now. Bot bot bot to the top, then let randos like me keep up the momentum.
14
u/Ser_Optimus 9d ago
Yes. Currently we plan to get rid of coal energy by 2038. Still too late for climate protection.
10
u/Honigwesen 9d ago
No we plan to get rid of it by 2030.
And it is likely we will do so even earlier.
→ More replies (2)2
u/fascistforlife 9d ago
And on the way to 2030 coal power will become less and less slowing climate change in the process thus pushing the year of no return further back. So 2030 is actually pretty solid
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)2
u/WatercressGuilty9 9d ago edited 9d ago
It's actually 2030 now, at least in the big rhine area, where most of the coal is used. Few months ago they did this dirty deal with RWE to allow them to destroy Lützerath, but therefore in return end coal mining by 2030
3
u/Johanneskodo 9d ago
We also use less coal than a lot of the countries complaining here and are decreasing it.
We also export more elictricity than we import.
The reason Germany gets bashed is because we use Renewables + Fossil as a intermediate solution. Not using more nuclear as an intermediate solution was a mistake but one made a long time ago. Now it‘s more viable to invest in renewables.
→ More replies (137)4
119
u/Knusperwolf Yuropean 9d ago
The amount of oil that is burnt in vehicles dwarfs the amount of coal being burnt in powerplants.
Better urban planning, fewer cars and shorter trips are the way to go. Yeah, get rid of coal too, but electricity is just a small part of energy consumption.
10
u/CreaThor1 9d ago
Working from home might help too. One of my colleagues always complains that they have to come to the office and get stuck in traffic even though our work can be done 100% from home. I'm wondering how many other guys are waiting in the traffic jam where the situation is exactly the same... and how much faster everyone could be at their workplace who actually need to go there, without those useless car rides clogging everything up.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (63)5
u/Thin-Zookeepergame46 9d ago
Be like Norway. Only have electric cars and mostly green energy. Fucking coal stuff. Get rid of it.
21
→ More replies (10)8
u/Playful_Function_698 9d ago
This is a "just stop being poor, be rich" level argument. Please refrain from sharing your thoughts in the future.
→ More replies (5)
71
u/Kai25552 9d ago edited 9d ago
This is just straight up intentional misinformation!
Germany is gradually reducing the use of coal power plants. There was a pseudo-increase after the Covid pandemic, because energy requirements went up to the normal level again.
→ More replies (89)
39
u/BigFatBallsInMyMouth Eesti 9d ago
u/mANchWartrAC, u/OkElevator3621, u/EmploymentSavings794, and u/GovernmentBig951 are all bots.
11
231
u/SiofraRiver Deutschland 9d ago
Oh not this bullshit again.
→ More replies (12)155
u/eip2yoxu 9d ago
This sub is slowly turning into r/europe
111
u/userrr3 Yuropean first Austrian second 9d ago
Thank you (both), I thought I can't be the only one thinking that. I came here after the europe sub fell and now I see the racist dogwhistles, Germany bashing, and nuke-bro-astroturfing creep in here as well...
40
10
u/miseconor 9d ago
The big sub is incredibly hate filled and it seems widespread these days. A huge amount of anti-Irish sentiment in it too. Wonder how bad it’ll get before the mods crack down
9
u/RedAlpacaMan 9d ago
Meanwhile everything critical of glorious
easterncentral europe gets downvoted into oblivion.8
14
u/sn0r 9d ago
I mean it's a meme sub. You'll get the low hanging fruit here since some people think this is somehow still funny. For in depth articles and discussions I'd recommend more serious subs like /r/europeanunion or /r/EUnews. You still get the mouth breathes but only in the comments and then only occasionally.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (94)3
u/Paranoid_Honeybadger 9d ago
The worst is, it cries wolf so many times over nonsense that when Germany actually does some bullshit (which anyone with a brain has to admit is occasionally the case - as is with any other country) criticizing it loses its potency.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Ein_Hirsch Yuropean 9d ago
I feel like this is a bot attack. High upvote count on the post, low upvote count on the comments. Also the comments are almost all opposed to the post.
→ More replies (1)
176
u/Sage_Nein 9d ago
Yeah, continue spreading fake news. In 2022, Germany burned about as much coal as in pre-Covid times, mostly due to the gas crisis and the necessity for more power exports/ less possibility for imports to/from neighbours such as France, who had a higher need due to their nuclear plants either being scheduled for checks or failing.
The numbers from 2023 are of course not yet available for every month, but here you can check the available data month by month. For instance, in August Germany burned about 40% less lignite than 2022 and 65% less hard coal. That's approving coal-fired power plants back for you.
→ More replies (37)10
37
u/RadioFacepalm 9d ago
Ah, Russian propagandists again trying to disunite Yurop. And all the nationalistic idiots buying it of course...
→ More replies (1)8
u/Ein_Hirsch Yuropean 9d ago
Where is the flood of idiots coming from I wonder. They are most certainly not native to this sub
→ More replies (2)3
42
u/MMBerlin 9d ago
Germany is using 20% less coal this year in comparison to last year.
→ More replies (50)2
u/ElSapio 9d ago
Germany uses around 5x as much coal as France.
7
u/foundafreeusername 9d ago
France already was like this long before we even started talking about climate change because they do not have local coal. Germany was heavily reliant on coal and is constantly reducing it since they signed the Kyoto protocol in 1990.
Your example could not be more cherry picked.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/trokolisz 9d ago edited 9d ago
Ok, so first thing first, why did they do that?
Surely Germany, who has been a massive advocate for Climate activism has a reason why they would open back coal plants.
But what could be the reason?
Surely something happened in the last 2 years that made it so that Germany needed more energy fast.
Surely there is a reason why they would choose coal.
But what major thing could have happened in the last 2 years, that left Germany with less electricity.
Like maybe having less of other resources?
Idk, I don't remember anything that could be an explanation.
Clearly Germany doesn't give a fuck about the climate and wants us all to die.
PS: It was Russia folks. It was Russia. As part of the sanctions, they bought less gas, so they needed to make up for it. It was literally the GREEN PARTY who announced this. Do we just think they stopped caring about the climate? It is a temporary solution.
I have read that it is only for 2 years. And I have also found articles that said they had considered Nuclear options, but France had some problems with their nuclear stuff, so they went with coal instead. I haven't been able to verify these 2 statements, and I don't care enough to try, but please, just fuck off if you think Germany is the bad guy here.
→ More replies (3)
25
u/CommunistWaterbottle Yuropean 9d ago
Oh.. i thought i was in r/europe for a second.
What a shame
12
u/StudyoftheUnknown 9d ago
You know there’s been some bullshit misinformation going down when a bunch of retards on the internet suddenly think they understand how an entire category of infrastructure works
→ More replies (1)
25
90
u/StoicRetention 9d ago
intrusive thought: I wish the USSR state apparatus covered up Chernobyl better
78
u/holyshitisdiarrhea 9d ago
For god's sake, the antinuclear movement was going on far earlier than Chernobyl. Before Chernobyl they just used other examples such as the 3 mile accident or the Windscale fire.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Pacify_ 9d ago
Even further, Chernobyl is over stated in its effect, the real killer of Nuclear was the fact that fossil fuel generators were cheaper to build and run.
→ More replies (10)22
u/eip2yoxu 9d ago edited 9d ago
I mean that would be helpful for regular citizens, but another reason why nuclear never really gained traction was that it never even got close to price of coal and our power hungry industry (as well as local coal mine operaters) lobbied for coal. Renewables are cheap and becoming cheaper and cheaper. There is no way Germany returns to nuclear unless we finally make
fissionfusion happen.20
u/Thandalen 9d ago
*Fusion happen. Dont worry, Fusion is just 20years away, just like it always has been.
2
2
u/Erlend05 Norge 9d ago
Nah it was 30/40 years away ever since the war. Only after recent breakthroughs that its gone down to 20 years away
→ More replies (1)2
u/sexyloser1128 9d ago
Fusion is just 20years away, just like it always has been.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png
→ More replies (10)12
9d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)5
u/eip2yoxu 9d ago
I'm not an expert but afaik the winter usually sees a lot of wind and for the few times it doesn't gas makes more sense because neither nuclear nor coal been switched on and off as easily as gas
→ More replies (1)5
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/AstroAndi 9d ago
A system with 80% renewables and 20% gas would be about as clean as France's maxed out nuclear electricity system, and that at a fraction of the price. Germany is on track to hit 80% renewable electricity before 2030.Also, Nuclear as grid support would be about the least sensible thing one could imagine. The price is astronomical as it is when it's running over 90%. Reducing that would make it 2-3 times more expensive.
→ More replies (1)21
u/urbanmember 9d ago
The horrendous costs and storage problems would persist.
→ More replies (3)6
u/StoicRetention 9d ago
short of a meltdown, those can be managed and mitigated. The billions of euros spend aren’t just poofing into thin air, they’re spent on a super skilled engineering base across all disciplines working in nuclear. Europe is ideal too as we don’t get much earthquakes.
We can’t un-saturate the atmosphere of CO2. We’re not going to regrow the Amazon and refreeze the poles in 10 lifetimes. What we can do is spend a bazillion dollars and dig a hole deep enough in less than one. The devil we can control is better than the one we can’t.
7
u/Sn_rk Hamburg 9d ago
Earthquakes aren't the problem, at least here in Germany - it's flooding. We've been having massive issues with river floods in recent decades and quite frankly we're lucky that Germany stopped building NPPs in the 90s because e.g. the Ahrtal which went completely underwater a few years ago, was the site of a planned plant which got cancelled due to the moratorium.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (14)6
u/userrr3 Yuropean first Austrian second 9d ago
Europe is ideal too as we don’t get much earthquakes
Speak for yourself.
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/mapping-europes-earthquake-risk
2
u/StoicRetention 9d ago
Fair enough, I should’ve specified. There’s zones of viability and there’s the opposite.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Major-General-Nunya 9d ago
It wasn't Chernobyl either, it was earlier, and then Fukushima was the nail in the nuclear coffin in central Europe. Everybody's back to scoring COOOOOAAAAALLLL!!!
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/jobager75 9d ago
So nice to bash Germany on a smartphone or computer made in China with 42 times more coal power plants… Hypocrisy as it‘s best.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/TheCrimsonShart 9d ago
Its still China. Sure Germany is a meme but dont fall for "per capita" chart nonsense. The issue is China and always has been.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SignificanceBulky162 9d ago
Per capita doesn't matter? So should each citizen of Luxembourg be allowed to drive monster trucks and throw car batteries in rivers because their total pollution will still be lower than a big country?
→ More replies (9)
3
u/JefferyTheQuaxly 9d ago
germany is literally stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place in terms of energy needs and consumption. its a well documented issue. the problem is germany has probly one of europes greatest demands for energy, but basically no renewable resources work well in germany itself. there isnt enough sunlight for solar, not enough wind for windmills, not enough water for hydrothermal power. germany basically has no where else to get their energy from. they have to import almost all of their energy. and for years they had large deals with russia for natural gas, which is still bad but much better than coal for the environment. but then russia invaded ukraine and cut off like almost half of germany's source of energy. the only other places they got natural gas and oil from are from the netherlands, which is in the process of closing their natural gas fields because its causing earthquakes, and scandanavia, which has ramped up exports to germany to offset losing russia but it hasnt been easy.
the third issue with germany is after the 2011 japan nuclear meltdown, german law proposed getting rid of all nuclear power plants in germany. which use to be their third largest source fo energy after coal and natural gas.
coal is what germany has a fuck ton of. they have some huge coal reserves. they have basically been forced into a position where coal is the only remaining source left for them to fulfil their massive energy needs, since they cant use natural gas anymore and renewable energy sources arent that effective in germany. an idea of how crazy their energy needs are, there is one single pharmaceutical factory in germany that supposedly uses like 1-2% of the entire country's energy demands. the only way they could get around this would be by building liquified natural gas refinery plants so they could import liquified natural gas through container ships. this is what other european countries have done also to try and decrease dependence on russia. but the problem with this is that germany has actively been avoiding doing that for years now because its still cheaper to import energy through russias natural gas pipelines. germany just expected that russia valued their trade partnership more than conquering its smaller neighbors. since russia invaded they have been trying to build liquified natural gas refinery's but it takes a couple years just to get them up and running, i dont think theyre expected to be operational until like 2025.
the only other solution for germany is to either spend ungodly amounts of money building new piplines halfway across the world from the middle east or by just letting people freeze to death in the winter to save on energy needs, while destroying their economy for the same reasons.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
2
u/notaredditer13 9d ago
Wait till OP finds out one of Germany's key "renewable" technologies is burning wood.
17
u/---Loading--- 9d ago
Do you mean shutting down nuclear power plants and over- reliance on Russian gas were a mistake?
→ More replies (2)44
u/Ex_aeternum SPQR GANG 9d ago
Now take a guess where the uranium came from.
8
u/Worldedita Morava 9d ago
Through an extremely build investment heavy pipeline that limits our ability to switch to other sources of Uranium?
Idk but sounds like that's what you're implying.
→ More replies (7)6
u/BestagonIsHexagon Occitanie Wine & Aircraft Production Enjoyer 9d ago edited 9d ago
You can stockpile nuclear fuel much more easily than fossil fuels. France has several years of nuclear fuel in storage for example. If there was a supply disruption we would have time to act and find alternative suppliers. The uranium ore itself is also quite cheap compared to the overall costs (most of the price of nuclear fuel come from refining, which is done in France). Ore price could triple and we would barely feel it on our bills. Several big and stable democracies (Canada, Australia) could supply enough uranium for a while.
13
u/The-Berzerker Yuropean 9d ago
And yet France is still trading with Rosatom. Riddle me that
→ More replies (17)4
u/Joki7991 Bayern 9d ago
Why should germany stockpile nuclear fuel for powerplants that go out of service?
→ More replies (3)
10
u/amarao_san Κύπρος (ru->) 9d ago
Is atomic energy more dangerous than coal? Last time I saw radiation charts for emissions, coal stations was very much leading.
31
u/DeVliegendeBrabander Polska 9d ago
The deadliest energy source worldwide is coal. It is estimated that there are roughly 33 deaths from brown coal (also known as Lignite) and 25 deaths from coal per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced from these fossil fuels. While figures take into account accidents, the majority of deaths associated with coal come from air pollution.
Clean and renewable energy sources are unsurprisingly the least deadly energy sources, with 0.04 and 0.02 deaths associated with wind and solar per unit of electricity, respectively. Nuclear energy also has a low death rate, even after the inclusion of nuclear catastrophes like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
→ More replies (17)5
u/boringestnickname 9d ago
Didn't literally 0 people die of actual power plant related causes in Fukushima?
I mean, it was a fucking tsunami. If there was another type of power plant situated there, you would probably have a similar death toll.
2
u/deadwannadance 9d ago
Absolutely NO. The power plant covered up countless of cancer victims years later, even back then basically employed the most desperate people for clean up, and then didn't even give them the proper attire. Because fuck them. The issue wasn't the failing plant, maybe one can get behind your argument there, but how the corporation handled the situation afterwards.
What you wrote is a super-problematic simplification. Yes, nuclear plants are not the big bad, especially not compared to many of still cherished alternatives. Yes, Fukushima was a disaster, and the coporation behind the plant did fucked up shit. As greed does to people.
I know you don't have any ill intent probably but in Japan this is still the trauma of the century and it's very important to not forget the bad players.
2
u/boringestnickname 9d ago
I still don't see how the technology was the problem.
You're saying it yourself: Greedy corporations killed a bunch of people. Like they do in every circumstance.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (12)10
u/Kiubek-PL 9d ago
In terms of deaths caused by atomic vs coal its not even comperable. Rn atomic is fighting with wind/solar for the safest energy source but its slowly beating them as the 2 disasters (which are counted in) get slowly avaraged out.
→ More replies (17)
1
u/SidewinderTV 9d ago edited 9d ago
Here before all the Germans show up to say that them releasing 9 times as much CO2 as France per kWh generated isn't actually that bad and they still have the moral high ground for standing up to nuclear power wich is bad because it is evil. Also, they will totally catch up to France in CO2/kWh in 10-20 years of building renewables so it doesn't matter anyway.
EDIT: Also, remember that one time France had to do reactor maintenance (during the summer) and imported power from Germany for a few months! Can't forget about that, just ignore the 20 years before.
15
u/Sn_rk Hamburg 9d ago
The issue isn't that it's not actually that bad, it's that we literally didn't have any other choice. We're talking about NPPs that were EOL, had not gone through the mandated security checkups for a decade and had massive security risks that were only tolerated because they were about to be shut down. The original plans to replace them with mostly renewables were gutted by Merkel, who then attempted to plug the hole with coal and gas when she was caught with her pants down by the security report of the *Reaktorsicherheitskomission* in 2011. That's the situation we were at pre-2022.
Germany is doing all she can to phase out coal and so far has massively reduced the use of fossil fuel in the last year. We're up to 80% renewables in this month, with slightly less in the last few, but we can't just build new NPPs or waste billions to bring up the old ones online for maybe the decade you can extend their life cycle for (let alone fix the security flaws), which in itself will likely take a few years until they're ready to be taken online again.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (7)17
u/kellerlanplayer 9d ago
What will France be doing in 10 years' time? Why don't you build 20 new nuclear power plants? Who will supply you with electricity in the future? Your reactors are outdated.
→ More replies (41)
730
u/Jan_Spontan Yurop 9d ago
https://preview.redd.it/sd7umyhyyh1c1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82a5ea73d956fdfdb8c5658d88d27acf5b784ee8
Such a coincidence in my Reddit feed LMAO