• DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Germany: We moved our power creation from 60% coal and atom-driven to 60% wind and solar-driven in the last 6 years. This change is fundamental and can’t be reversed. We stopped our atom plants and have a plan out of coal. Even though our geography isn’t in favor for renewables, our country is dedicated in becoming carbon neutral. This is supported by most of the population and industry. (Yes renewables are cheaper than coal, gas, and atom)

    Still open is the transition of heat and cars to electricity. Rather an emotional debate - Germans are car-crazy. The car discussion is similar to the gun debate in the US.

    • rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      We stopped our atom plants and have a plan out of coal.

      Yeah you folks did this in the wrong order.

      • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not when you consider the maintenance costs of the plants they closed. Basically of them were beyond original design life.

        • rautapekoni@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I guess, but the Energiewende must’ve been really expensive already and by my best guesstimation those upkeep costs would have been small in comparison. What irks me more about the situation is wrapping shutting down the nuclear plants in a guise of green policy while simultaneously supporting a huge coal industry. Very happy for all the renewables, still.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      By atom, do you mean nuclear energy? Why did you stop the nuclear plant?, assuming that’s what you’re referring to.

      How does this relate to Germany relying using natural gas from Russia, before their invasion of Ukraine? My understanding was that Germany had energy issues at the offset, which I wouldn’t expect considering how much renewavles you use

      • Ptsf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        Honestly, despite all of nuclears many benefits, there’s still no good action plan for the significant amounts of substantially dangerous waste it leaves around. Hard to figure out a storage plan for an invisible poison seeping from a rock for the next 50,000 years.

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Does it actually seep? my understanding of chemical waste is: that it doesn’t generate a lot (the US has about a foot ball fields worth from all of our nuclear power plants in our total history, so nearly 70 years), and that they placed is secure, not leaking containers. You’re right that it will eventually be a problem, but probably a problem that we will have to deal with later than our current climate crisis. An argument could be made that maybe new nuclear plants shouldn’t be made, but if we have some up and running, that’s cheap energy that generates little carbon.

          • ddplf@szmer.info
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Deleted my comment because I was wrong, AfD does not lobby against nuclear plants.

            However it does not change the fact that they are neonazi Putin enthusiasts

            • superkret@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              But they aren’t conservative, either.
              And the conservatives weren’t the ones lobbying against nuclear. That was Merkel, who was a centrist.

    • klangcola@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sudden culture shock from a Norwegian:

      Still open is the transition of heat and cars to electricity…

      Almost all electricity used by Norwegian homes goes towards heating (including cooking and hot water), and charging cars. So counting heating separate from electricity suddenly makes the electric transition sound less impressive. (And the transition away from nuclear more baffling). It’s still impressive to see Germany really follow through on renewables though. 60% renewable electricity is still a lot

      Is there a plan to transition away from burning fossil fuels for heating?

      • freebee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        German homes are relatively okay insulated. Very remote: burn wood or some sort of wood pellet stuff. Not clean, but it is local and renewable. Less remote: heat pumps, runs on electricity. Cities: many are planning/extending heat nets, those can be partially powered by left over heat from industry. And import nuclear electricity from France in winter I guess!

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Try to dismantle a nuclear plant. It costs tons of money and time. Ask the people at Nagasaki or Tschernobyl.

        Dismantle a coal power plant takes time, but one can reuse the iron and such. All the open mining fields and mining tunnels are the problem. In Western Germany, there are areas where house crack or cars fall down sudden openings caused by old mining tunnels.

        Try to dismantle at wind mill or solar fields. It’s a quest of days and some bucks.

        I prefer the easy way of living. So, my favorite are renewables.

        • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You dismantled your plants because dismantling your plants is hard? 🤔 That seems backwards. Why not upgrade? Then you never have to dismantle. Keep it alive forever.

          • AgentRocket@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Upgrading would have cost way more. one of the reasons atom power is so expensive (without government subsidies) is the cost of the plants which needs to be recouped as well as the price of the uranium. not to mention that we haven’t found a suitable place to store the waste for those thousands of years until it’s harmless.