1y ago

German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power

www.reuters.com German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power, Deutschlandfunk reports

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he is against a new nuclear power debate in the country, in an interview released late on Friday with German radio station Deutschlandfunk.

Growth in german wind capacity is slowing. Soo... then the plan is to keep on with lignite and gas? Am I missing something?

Installed Wind Capacty - Germany

You're viewing a single thread.

286 comments

Tbf it's starting to be too late, even if they were pro nuclear it's going to take like 20 years
- Better start now than wait then.
  
  Yes pouring down money on a technology, that at best can help us mitigate emissions in 20 years, instead of investing it in a scaleable and cheaper technology now (wind, solar) is a great and reasonable strategy...
  And that is entirely ignoring the debate abou the safety and waste issue of nuclear power.
  
  100% renewables is a fiction. That’s a fact. No one is doing it. Instead we are rolling out new Gas and new Coal power plants. I hope you like gas and coal.
- Scholz is right that nuclear is dead in German. Nuclear is always political and there's no stable political majority pro nuclear. This has nothing to do with the technology. It just won't happen.
  Most entreprises, energy or else, are privately run and financed. Capitalism. Nuclear is private on paper, but no one is going to build reactors without governent support. Many industries are regulated, like banking, but they are still driven by profit motives, private interest. At least in Germany, there's no entrepreneurial mindset behind nuclear. Rent seeking business people and lobbyists, sure. But not risk takers. The businesses lobbying pro nuclear are lead by ex-politicians and similar types who secretly want a safe government job.
  Nuclear is dead and it's not the biggest problem. The much bigger elephant in the room is that we mostly talk about renewables. Sure, renewals grow, but nowhere near the rate needed. Everyone can see this, the data is available, and we just don't give a shit.
  And don't get me started on hydrogen. Doesn't make sense to even consider hydrogen unless you have a huge surplus on (preferably renewable) energy.
- It's always too late, might as well not try
  
  By the time countries that could have built nuclear power plants would complete them, they will have collectively burnt enough coal and gas to doom humankind.
  So: indeed, the world leaders didn't try seriously.
  
  You could also channel the effort into renewable energy and the the reward would be greater and faster achieved.
  
  Yes, that is exactly the nuclear motto: It's too late to match any climate goal with nuclear power not already starting counstruction many years ago... so let's say "fuck climate goals and stop trying" and start building nuclear anyway, because it's really cool and in 20-30 years it might solve our 10 year problem of remaining co2 budgets.
- The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is right now.
- It is too late. You'd have to rebuild an entire industry. There is no trained personnel for this, no suplly chains, no plans or up-to-date regulations, nothing. It will cost billions over billions and take at least decade before you even have your first new powerplants.
  You can install many times their capacity in renewables for cheaper and without the riscs and dependencies attached in that time span. That's a fact and you can hate it and would be right, but that doesn't change it. Nuclear is over for Germany and the cries to reinstate it are nothing but populism.
  
  That's a bad take. Germany is saying it's too late for decades. If not for people like you, they would already have nuclear up and running.
  
  This "people like me" here hasn't voted for not putting perfectly fine power plants to good use and especially not for using coal instead.
  I'm also not aware of people claiming it's too late because of practical reasons "for decades". On the one hand I don't think the narrative was centered around practicality, but ideology. The opponents of nuclear didn't want to take the risks and didn't want the responsibility of nuclear waste. There was also a lot of fearmongering which had nothing to do with practicality either. On the other hand the fate of nuclear in Germany was only sealed when Fukushima happened, that's not even one decade ago iirc. There was a chance of returning to nuclear, at least with emerging technologies, up until that point. But when it happened, the last opposition to ending nuclear capitulated (and probably filled their pockets with money from the coal lobby).
  This whole debate about nuclear in Germany was brought up again by populists. The damage is done and it will not be undone. It will take years to even reactivate the usable power plants we have right now and there is zero interest by companies to build new ones. You'd have to state-fund it pretty much 100%, which no one will support. And even if you did, renewables are still cheaper. The people who have maintained these plants are retired or have new jobs by now. There will be mass protest basically for sure if you change course now. It won't happen and doesn't make sense.
  
  You just said the same shit again.
  
  Because you don't seem to understand that you are wrong on plain facts and also rudely overgeneralizing. To make it so clear even people like you can understand: If you presented me the facts 10 years ago and asked whether we should use nuclear, I would probably have said yes.
  
  Lol ook
  
  China has a supply chain for nuclear. it's doable.
  (China and nuclear in the same comment, here they come)
  
  Sure, the country that might straight up ban Chinese hardware in networks because of security concerns and that wants to reduce its dependency on China is going to let China build their power grid. Not that I like this fascist dictatorship better or less than any other, but if anything like this where to happen we would 100% turn to US companies. And this would only solves one of the many issues - supply. I mean, if you really want to anything is possible, but then you might as well go straight for renewables like other countries successfully did.

286 comments