this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2702 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (9 children)

What do you mean? Don't you think transitioning to mostly renewables while coal and gas go down are good things?

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Nuclear is affordable, efficient and proven. Abandoning it instead of promoting it was a dumb, conservative move that hurt everyone involved. Except Russian billionaires, of course.

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.

[–] discount_door_garlic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry. In other countries with no nuclear infrastructure, renewables are definitely the better, cheaper, more scalable choice - but countries which invested big many decades ago are in a different position, and Germany's deliberate destruction of their nuclear capabilities has left them dependant on fossil fuels from an adversarial state - easily a worse situation than small amounts of carefully managed nuclear waste while renewables were scaled up.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry.

Shhh... anti-nuclear don't want to hear this. They'd rather project, even though people are talking about how stupid closing down the current nuclear infrastructure and not advocating to build new ones!

I don't support building new nuclear power plants, but it's ridiculous to close down already existing ones given the threat of climate change. NPP should act more like stop gap until renewable energy can take over more effectively.

[–] theonyltruemupf@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

I answered a very similar comment a little further down:

https://feddit.de/comment/9599367

I'm not claiming it was smart to leave nuclear before coal. It wasn't. But it is what happened and it was decided two decades ago. Nuclear is done in Germany and there is no point discussing it further. New reactors were not going to happen either way.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)