Yes. We happen to export more energy than we import. But that doesn’t matter because some people have a vague feeling that the greens suck.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Being against nuclear is massively stupid, to be fair.
I think there are quite valid reasons for the stance. From the general dangers, the immense costs (nuclear energy is expensive as shit), the issue of disposing of the radioactive waste, over other complicated moral dilemma that stem from the fact that nuclear energy effectively forces future generations to deal with the after effects and costs, even though they could never actively influence the politics around it.
And funnily enough, as you just posted, we’ve had to export energy to France, the masters of nuclear energy, in the past because their plants proved to be unreliable in certain conditions, due to a lack of available cooling water. An issue that is going to increase due to climate change.
The French reliance on nuclear energy is part of the reason they have to import our energy.
Stopping it overnight would be silly, but being against it and wanting to see it phased out in favour of renewables is a perfectly sensible position.
I agree based on the fact that France has plenty of nuclear that they can export to you when all is going well. Also based on the evidence from Ukraine that nuclear can basically never be safe enough. But on the other hand, was the year of a crisis in gas supply really the year to phase out the old nuclear plants when you look at the enormous damage the lignite coal will have done and continues to do? Not for me, crazy decision for a green party to back in my view.
According to mathematic models I’ve seen, nuclear energy could at best substitute for about 1% of our gas demands. These are not interchangeable technologies. Nuclear energy is usually not a great way to heat your house.
Yes yes, smart comment about nuclear energy etc.
But did y'all see The Mud Wizard? It's the funniest character since Techno Viking!
But did y'all see The Mud Wizard? It's the funniest character since Techno Viking!
Last edited:
Coal isn't a great way to heat your house either. Unless Germany is using town gas again or something
Simple dynamics in politics. If the opposition riles up the population enough so that the government feels it has to enact (part of) the opposition's policies to remain in power, why wouldn't you (also) blame the party or movement for the policies that they successfully promoted?
Does Merkel share a main part of the blame for Germany's energy policy? Certainly, she was the leader. But to me it's baffling to say the Greens had nothing to do with the exit from nuclear energy as if that policy wasn't one of their raison d'êtres, as if they and their allies hadn't worked for decades to turn public opinion against nuclear energy, as if they hadn't created the first exit from nuclear energy when they first entered the government, and as if they did not ride the wave of anti-nuclear energy sentiment hard after Fukushima. You cannot just look at a government's decision without the political context. Of course, the Greens were a main driver of the exit from nuclear energy in and outside the government, they helped create the atmosphere that ultimately lead to Germany's exit from nuclear energy.
Last edited:
And while they did all that, they always demanded to build up the sector of renewable energies. Merkel did the opposite. So again, I don’t see how they could share the blame. This demand always went hand in hand with the demand for a largely increased renewable sector. Sure, one might go on and say they wanted out of nuclear and they are to blame. But that is massively oversimplified and does a huge injustice to both the Green Party and the movement.
They wanted neither coal or nuclear. They wanted renewables. What did they get? We went out of nuclear, might go back into it, increased coal consumption and decreased the sector of renewables in the country.
Nothing of this is a demand of the Green movement or the Green Party. It’s a policy enacted by Merkel and her CDU. A bad policy, that was doomed to fail from the beginning. They are responsible, they are to blame. That people are focusing on the greens or the movement is absurd, but doesn’t come as a surprise.
And it’s typical that on these last pages people voiced more criticism towards the Green movement and party, than towards those actually responsible. That just shows how great lobbyism works and how gladly people will jump on these obviously wrong talking points. Which is how we get people wanting to substitute gas with nuclear energy.
These are two different issues.
What people are taken issue with is you specifically saying that the Greens had nothing to do with the nuclear exit and going as far as pretending that you cannot influence government policy if you are not part of the government. That is clearly false. It's also a bit ironic, because you were so sensitive to people blaming the Greens for anything, you claimed they had nothing to do with the nuclear exit, when this was the crowning achievement of their existence and something they had fought for for decades.
The other issue is you claiming that the Greens would have managed the nuclear exit better by increasing the renewable sector. That is at least debatable. Clearly, the Greens cannot be blamed for all of Merkel's energy policy, when they disagreed with certain aspects. Energy is not the only field, where people will not look back too fondly at 16 years of Merkel. Whether the Greens would have managed to exit nuclear energy, coal and not get dependent on Russian gas all at the same time is up for debate. But that is a different discussion.
No, the issue is people claiming that what Merkel did was something the greens and the movement wanted, which is not true. They wanted to abolish nuclear for renewables. And that’s it. And what they got was not it. It really isn’t that difficult.
Nah he's done you good there. Those responsible for implementation are solely responsible for considering all factors, prioritising and implementing accordingly. You can't shift any blame onto those making demands because it's not their job to validate them against other competing and linked demands. If a structural engineer designs a bridge that collapses because of a cosmetic feature the client requested, you can't blame the client.
The demand was to faze out nuclear, the demand from society is to have a secure energy mix. Its a simple answer as to who is responsible for balancing those demands.
I did not say otherwise.
Merkel is to blame for the failure of her energy policy to adapt to the nuclear energy exit. But the nuclear energy exit, specifically, followed decades of activism of the Greens. It is silly to pretend that the Greens had nothing to do with the exit from nuclear energy. That is what HTG said and what some people disagree with. And as I said, it's quite ironic, because the Greens obviously are rightfully happy to claim that the exit was their achievement. But we are going in circles and I am at work.
Oily money out out yet wears a sky blue t-shirt. Hmmmm....
That coppers face on the right.
Calls Andrew Tate a bad person yet probably has more arrests than him at this stage.
feck him anyway. He can rot in some dungeon and get a taste of the abuse he dished on others.
Ignorant question but what's her source of income to spend and organize everything that she does?
I did a quick search, and it seems she's selling some merchandise to make money. One would assume that these campaigns require a significant amount of money.
I did a quick search, and it seems she's selling some merchandise to make money. One would assume that these campaigns require a significant amount of money.
Onlyfans
How dare you???
Let's continue this conversation on discord, mate.
I've heard from a friend of a friend that apparently deepfakes with her are popular with a certain crowd. Probably the ones that don't like her. People are weird.
It really isn't. Massively expensive to build, very bad for the environment (extraction, waste storage for millennia and the risk of accident). I'm very glad it is banned where I live.
There are good arguments for Nuclear but there are also some real problems with it, even with the newer smaller reactors available.
Firstly however there is only 1 permanent storage facility on Earth and thats in Finland and its only just opened. All other facilities are temporary, generally they are thought of as safe but after over 70 or more years of nuclear power we still only have one country with one permanent storage facility.
Even with the new CANDU and similar types of reactors the cost is massive and the timescale to build is very long. The reality is that in the meantime solar, wind, geothermal, wave etc etc are filling the gaps. In reality only the richest countries with decent population bases can afford Nuclear. We have very roughly about 200 countries on Earth and less than 1/5th can afford Nuclear.
War is a problem as we have recently seen in Ukraine, whilst there was no disaster in this instance the possibility with the worlds increasingly fractious relationships that a Nuclear power station becomes a target and lets not forget that once we have a major nuclear disaster the recovery is incredibly long. The risk might be pretty small but the consequences are huge.
One of the biggest problems with people who push Nuclear as a solution is they are looking for a single solution that solves everything. the reality is that the world will have to make use of multiple solutions to solve different countries economic and physical needs.
Some of the solutions are interesting, for example France has around 5 Nuclear power stations that are past their use by date and to replace those stations will take time. Recently France passed legislation that means any open air car park over 80sq meters is now required to have a solar canopy installed over it. This of course wont replace the Nuclear power stations output but its an indicator of the various solutions being put in place. Spain and Korea for example are putting solar panels through the centers of their motorways, India and California are putting Solar over there water irrigation systems. Spain has put wind turbines along one of its motorways making use of the draft vehicles produce.
There are solutions, the issue is mostly willpower and politics to act quickly with them. Nuclear is an easy to suggest catch all that in reality is a bit more difficult than just saying it out loud.
Most things like this are basically gimmicks. They can't hurt much but they're not doing much either. Floating solar panels on reservoirs is actually a pretty good idea in drought prone countries as it prevents the water evaporating whilst also generating power they can use at nearby pumping / treatment facilities. The water probably also helps to keep the panels cool and operating efficiently. The car parks one is probably not awful either as it might help the car parks keep slightly cooler, but it isn't going to make a big dent in their power generation needs. Just building a canopy over the car park and putting some plants on it might be almost as useful.
Its not going to replace the power from the Nuclear power plants but all you have to do is look at what the South Australian govt did with assisting people into solar power and the batteries for their housing to see small things over time do make a dent. Sorry i disagree with the whole gimmick line of things. Our way forward is many many solutions all combined to cover needs, lots of different types of power generation is far more realistic for all countries rather than the idea of any one solution.
I absolutely agree that lots of small things is how we get there. The draught from vehicles passing isn't one of them though I don't think. Generating power where it's needed (in cities/industrial parks) is useful, and taking advantage of genuine synergies is brilliant. Putting your solar panels along the central reservation of a dirty motorway where they're hard to clean and maintain is a lot less so.
It will never get old.Always good for a laugh
The German police belongs to one of most well-behaved security forces in the world, this has to be said. A striking contrast to the French police for example.
I am scared nowadays and I doublecheck, and wonder if pictures are AI nowadays. Is coming rapidly
Something looks off with her left hand. Is that an extra finger?
Thats random. Wasnt she blocking a road?