Summary

Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, called Germany’s decision to fully phase out nuclear power “illogical,” noting it is the only country to have done so.

Despite the completed phase-out in 2023, there is renewed debate in Germany about reviving nuclear energy due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at COP29, Grossi described reconsidering nuclear as a “rational” choice, especially given global interest in nuclear for emissions reduction.

Germany’s phase-out, driven by environmental concerns and past nuclear disasters, has been criticized for increasing reliance on Russian gas and missing carbon reduction opportunities.

  • Fisch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out it was a good thing, when the Greens phased out the last 3, it became a bad thing.

    That’s literally all this discussion is about. Anyone who’s actually taken a look at the data knows that phasing it out was the right move and that there’s no point in bringing it back. There’s a reason the share of nuclear keeps going down in the EU. Germany is also not the only country that doesn’t use nuclear anymore.

    Here are the sources for anyone interested:

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it. Nuclear is the only viable clean baseload power generation option we have. Solar and wind can’t do it, coal and oil are filthy, battery storage is nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

      • DerGottesknecht@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

          “Baseload” is still needed. Renewables are great but they are simply not there yet. There is a world between “potential” and “available”.

          • DerGottesknecht@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Yeah, right now. But not in 10 years when the first npps could be ready. And you would also need storage for npps when there is a lot of wind or sun, cause you can’t shut down the npps all the time or thermal stresses will cause damages to the pipes. And renewables are here now, it’s the storage that needs to catch up.

    • atro_city@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Basically, when the right-wing CDU started the phase-out

      LMAO. Completely false:

      In 2000, the First Schröder cabinet, consisting of the SPD and Alliance ‘90/The Greens, officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. The power plants in Stade and in Obrigheim were turned off on 14 November 2003, and 11 May 2005, respectively. The plants’ dismantling was scheduled to begin in 2007.

      Fukushima forced the hand of the CDU afterwards.

      It was a dumb idea in 2000, a dumber idea in 2011, and amongst the dumbest ideas during the war. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear people shot us all in the foot with their “what about our children in 1000 years” crap. So concentrated on the far far future were they, that they ignored what impact it would have on the near and medium term. Sure, the children in 1000 years might not run into nuclear waste, but they’ll be living in a climate change wasteland. Good job!