this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
432 points (99.8% liked)
memes
22472 readers
3580 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Afaik after Fukushima they abandoned nuclear no?
Yeah well, that's the conservative government for you. We could've just as easily transitioned from nuclear to renewables, which don't have the nuclear waste problem that is still unsolved. And Germany was for a brief time leading renewable energy innovation. But when the conservative government was faced with the cost of providing the infrastructure for this up-and-coming industry branch of the future, they instead cut all funding. This directly lead to the downfall of the German renewable sector ("Altmaier-Delle"). So while you are correct, when taking into account the entire time span from 2002, that Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas especially, it is incorrect to say that not sticking with nuclear was the sole reason for this. Betting on renewables was absolutely feasible even back then, as the current boom of renewables aptly demonstrates. But the conservatives do what conservatives do best: Stifle the future by fearing the up-front investment cost and sticking to the old and familiar instead of betting on the new and future-proof, even when the old way of doing this has already been shown to be unsustainable.
Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions. So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the "good citizen", but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
You can see how much sense it makes at any time:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes
That's what I call a cynical policy written by people who want to score points but don't give a flying fuck about climate.
No, at least in the case of Germany, keeping them running was simply not an economically viable option. They were ANCIENT, so would've needed a fuckton of work, which would've taken forever AND cost a fortune. This is the opinion of the energy industry THEMSELVES, not from bleeding heart liberals.
There's basically no universe where building nuclear is a better option RIGHT NOW than just building more renewables and batteries and a smarter net.
Straw man argument.
The question in Gernamy was not to build more nuclear power plant. The question was how much COAL AND GAS plants to build, and that number got inflated by the shutting down of nuclear plants.
The energy industry doesn't give a flying fuck about climate. If coal and gas was cheaper than maintaining nuclear, then it was their best solution.
While we're there, coal plants generate more radiations and cause way more deaths than a maintained nuclear plant does.
I will stop here. I've said my piece enough.