this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
610 points (82.8% liked)
World News
32363 readers
500 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's really bad for $$ to do the responsible thing, so we're going to proceed with existential environmental degradation. Because $.
To be completely honest (and I am a huge anti-coal-mining dude), currently I'm happy that we still have the coalmines running. It would not have been possible to build solar and wind power fast enough to compensate for the coalmines, the only feasible alternative would have been gas and that comes from russia
Or to have kept your nuclear running and not freaked out after the fukushima disaster...
Just saying
Correct. You can add the vastly underestimated methane emissions of natural gas to that. (They are hard to measure but nobody seems toooo interested)
Maybe nuclear could've been better than coal?
There are a lot of things which in hindsight were better than coal. But when the decision was made to dig where the wind farm is, there wouldn't have been any time to build a nuclear power plant anymore
Nuclear was already better than coal 50 years ago... the whole anti-nuclear movement was predicated on the Chernobyl disaster, making "natural gas" and renewables better than nuclear, with a supposed phase-out of natural gas. Coal was always the worst option, both in emissions, and in the impact of open pit mining, when it was already known that deep shaft black coals mines had been getting depleted for decades.
It was highly irresponsible to not renew the nuclear plants before there was at least enough renewables to replace them, and instead increase reliance on natural gas... from Russia from all places. Particularly after Crimea, there should have been a reassessment and a push to fast-track nuclear.
It takes only 5 years to build a nuclear power plant, Crimea was 9 years ago; Germany had plenty of time to prepare itself, instead of investing in increasing NordStream capacity.
I agree with most of the comment, but this is just an oversimplification. I'm sure that you can build a nuclear power plant in 5 years, if you have the requisite infrastructure, engineers and knowledge. Germany did not have any of those in sufficient amount to build anywhere near enough nuclear reactors between the decision to switch to coal & gas in around 2011 and the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Even France wouldn't be capable of that in such a short amount of time.
Had they made that decision 30 years ago, sure, but in such short time? No way.
Germany had 17 nuclear power plants in 2011, when they decided to close half of them after Fukushima. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Last nuclear power plant closed in April 2023. I find it hard to believe that there was not enough expertise to build some new ones in all this time.
This is what really rubs me the wrong way: coal should have been phased out before nuclear, not used to replace nuclear.
It all seems like a grift and a knee jerk reaction under the guise of "look how green we are", while actually doing all the opposite.
The issue being that of those 17 nuclear plants, the youngest was completed over 30 years before Fukushima. Germany had stopped construction of new nuclear plants way before 2011.
I agree they shouldn't have closed ones already built of course. That was indeed a knee jerk reaction.
Germany is still going to use the same amount of coal whether this runs or not, they'd just import it from another country or have another mine go faster if there's one that still can
The way to reduce coal is to increase low carbon sources of energy and to reduce consumption
Nope. Dont import and scarsity will drive prices up and people use less. It's pretty simple really.
We need to keep all fossil fuels in the ground. The way we do this is reduce energy usage.
Do you really think it's more responsible to force the families out of their homes and demolish several villages/towns over some old wind turbines? Or did you mean the responsible thing being investing in renewables? I really can't tell, sorry 😅
Obviously the latter
It's more responsible to stop mining fossil fuels.