Germans be like
smegforbrains @ smegforbrains @lemmy.ml Posts 5Comments 144Joined 2 yr. ago
smegforbrains @ smegforbrains @lemmy.ml
Posts
5
Comments
144
Joined
2 yr. ago
I think this is only true if you have an adequate storage facility, since IMHO the hazards of storing high level nuclear waste for years on end on the surface level in sixteen different intermediate storage facilities all over Germany are greater for the people, animals, plants...the whole biosphere.
I don't think that's true. These are hydrogen power plants. The hydrogen will be produced in times of high yield from renewables and will be used during times of low yield from renewables in order to meet the energy demand
This happens when you move CASTOR containers which carry spent nuclear fuel in Germany, that's why it is most of the time stored next to the production sites. https://www.google.com/search?q=castor+transporte+deutschland+proteste&client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=cd5515df3b07dc25&sca_upv=1&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_xNWd1LWEAxUGgf0HHSk7DekQ_AUIBygC&biw=414&bih=790
Sorry but I do not understand what you are trying to say there. Can you elaborate please?
This is true for a myriad of topics. But not regarding the energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels. The people of Germany are very much in support of this idea. 78% of Germans want this process to be finished even earlier and criticise our government for not moving fast enough on this topic.
Yes I agree. It is possible to build long term storage facilities and there is one operating in Finland for example. And the finnish people in the region actually welcomed the facility. But the situation is very much different in Germany. Whenever plans for a such a facility became public massive protests ensued and the projects became politically unfeasable.
Of course we should listen to the experts in the field, but even they had no success in convincing the populace of a possible site. I'm convinced that we need such a facility and that it should be a scientific emotionless process. But this is currently not possible in Germany. And as long as there is no such consensus and we don't have such a facility, I think it's irresponsible to produce more nuclear waste and leave it on the surface for the coming generations to take care of.
The German plan for the "Energiewende" (Energy Transition) is to phase out coal until 2038 and become 100% climate neutral by 2045. The current plan is to do that using a mix of renewables and hydrogen power plants which will substitute the current coal power plants.
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html
Google translate: https://www-bmwk-de.translate.goog/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
There seems to be a misunderstanding, Germany is reactivating old coal power plants, not building new ones.
This happened because we wanted to get out of nuclear energy. This started already in 2011. This was called the "Atomausstieg"(nuclear power phase-out) and it was supported by a large part of the German populace. Especially in the aftermath of the Fukushima meltdown, Germany wanted to get out of nuclear power production. This phase-out was finished in 2023. But when the war in Ukraine started the German dependence on Russian gas proved to be a problem. In order to address this 14 old coal power plants have been reactivated.
According to the current plans Germany wants to build 40 new climate neutral hydrogen power plants.
https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/ausstieg-atomkraft/ausstieg_node.html
Google translate: https://www-base-bund-de.translate.goog/DE/themen/kt/ausstieg-atomkraft/ausstieg_node.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
I do think we should protect coming generations from our nuclear waste and I do not think this is ridiculous at all. In the same way we should leave our children with a world with a livable climate we should not leave them with a heritage of tons of highly radioactive material stored on the surface because we have no long term storage facility.
Why is that? 100% renewables is feasible according to studies. Germany has reached 52% renewables in 2023 and the goal is to increase this value to 100% until 2045.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307
I think we should include nuclear waste in the output calculation of nuclear power plants. Just the high level waste from nuclear power plants is hundreds of thousands times more radioactive and toxic than coal plant output.
But your are right, we should move away from both of these: coal and nuclear power. And this is actually exactly what the German people want and what the government has decided. Ending coal burning is scheduled for 2038 and complete switch to renewable energy production is scheduled for 2045. This is called the Energiewende (Energy Transition) and here is the government's page on this topic: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translate: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Germans agree with this policy and we even want it faster: https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Please check the page of our government about the "Energiewende" (change in energy production)
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translate: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
This is exactly what a majority of Germans want, we want it even faster and it's what we want our government to do:
This is not true. Germany has pledged to get out of coal by the year 2038 and complete the switch to climate neutral energy production by the year 2045.
This is the official site of the German government on this topic: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translation of this page: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
IMHO this is not a fact but an opinion of yours. I for one think it's not intelligent to produce more radioactive waste without having a facility to store it safely for a long time.
Being in opposition to nuclear power does not mean we are coal energy proponents. We should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
There was a democratic and scientific process to find such a site for over twenty years. We as a people could not agree on a place and you can not build such a facility against the will of the people. They have to be convinced that's it's safe and this failed miserably. So there is no such long term storage facility and my argument which I have repeated multiple times, that you fail to respond to is that:
As long as there is no such site we should not produce more nuclear waste.
What is your proposition how to handle the waste as long as we don't have a place to store it in the long term?
Basic facts like all Germans are imbeciles? These are opinions, not facts.
Yes we chose not to build such facilities and that's why we should not produce more nuclear waste. This is exactly my argument you failed to respond to.
I'm struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland
Google translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don't think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It's true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
"All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but 'include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters'."
Ad hominem. No argument offered, just personal attacks.
It does very much play a role. Because of the lack of public support it was not possible to build a long term nuclear storage facility in Germany. There have been multiple tries to establish such a site as early as 1979 in Gorleben. This project has been stopped by a large protest initiative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben