- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- queermunist she/her ( @queermunist@lemmy.ml ) 159•10 months ago
What a fucking joke. It’s amazing how all these countries set weak goals for themselves and then fail anyway.
We’re all going to die lol
- CrabAndBroom ( @CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml ) 77•10 months ago
The UK likes to go the other way by talking up a ridiculous goal and then immediately failing it, like "Our goal is to produce zero CO2 and become the global leader in renewables by 2025” and then immediately open a new coal mine.
- Samsy ( @Samsy@lemmy.ml ) 28•10 months ago
Yes, but the goals in germany are written into a law, and the highest council actually blaming the government for failed goals.
- quatschkopf34 ( @quatschkopf34@feddit.de ) 26•10 months ago
Still not gonna change a damn thing. The (federal) government(s) don’t care, they are busy framing harmless protesters as potential terrorists and jailing them accordingly. Or they simply change the law again so that they do not have to be held accountable for their missed goals (see the ministry for transport).
- Sodis ( @Sodis@feddit.de ) 10•10 months ago
The goal is complete decarbonization until 2045 and a lot of sectors in Germany are already on track with that goal, energy being one of them. That with a minister of finance, that does not want to spend money and a minister of transportation, that is more a puppet of the automobile industry and does not care about decarbonization. Imagine the US without the huge subsidies into clean energy. That’s what Germany is trying to do under their current minister of finance.
- Iceblade ( @Iceblade02@lemdit.com ) English3•10 months ago
Energy or electricity? Those are two very different things.
- Sodis ( @Sodis@feddit.de ) 5•10 months ago
Sorry, that was imprecise. The correct German term would be Energiewirtschaft, that can be translated to energy industry. That’s not only electricity, but also production of biogas, district heating, refining of fossil fuels and so on. The struggling departments from worst to slightly struggling are: -transportation: widespread use of fossil fuels -building: heating with fossil fuels and emissions from concrete -industry: high use of energy and no alternative to fossil fuels in some cases
- Iceblade ( @Iceblade02@lemdit.com ) English1•10 months ago
Great that the plan is for the entire economy. Cheap and reliable clean electricity is possibly the most important and straightforward(ish) issue to solve with steel and concrete sitting at the opposite end of the spectrum.
- jabjoe ( @jabjoe@feddit.uk ) English10•10 months ago
I’m much more optimistic, though I do think it will get worse before it gets better. I think we’ll end up with a few mass killer enviromental events before humans start to save themselves properly. It’ll never be too late as Earth is always going to better than anywhere else for us.
Quick list of things hopeful in my feeds of the top of my head.
- Renewable energy is the cheapest energy.
- Agrivoltaics can increase yeilds while also providing power.
- Home Solar & battery pay back time is coming down all the time.
- Electric cars are the cheapest over their life time and the upfront costs are tumbling.
- Electrification of more and more transport types is happening to save costs.
- EVs are going V2H/V2G/V2X which means you get a large home (and office?) battery to take part in energy markets.
- Second life EV batteries will eventury be a source of larger, cheaper, home batteries.
- Just the other day another methane solution : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/22/bacteria-that-eats-methane-could-slow-global-heating-study-finds
- Fusion looks closer than 50 years out now.
- RightToRepair + OpenSource is slowly spreading and will reduce life time costs and reduce e-waste. Regulators are waking up too.
- Vertical farming is developing and will end up cheaper.
- Lab meat or precision fermentation is a path to animal free animal protein at lower costs.
- 5 minute cities as an idea is spreading.
- Covid has normalized WFH
- Green spaces in cities to cool them and improve mental health is increasingly being talked about and pushed in some forward thinking cities.
- Peak population is constantly revised down and sooner. Once population starts to fall, it’s not set to stop for a long time.
There is a lot of movement. It’s all about aligning economics with fighting climate change. Which is natural as using less to do the same thing is better for both.
One thing that is a very good sign is oil companies are scared. They are spending a lot of money pumping out FUD. Doom peddling to slow climate action, but economics is against them. Even without climate damage being costed in. Which governments will do when oil is less powerful.
Fight the doom!
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 3•10 months ago
There’s also a lot of propaganda paid by fossil fuel lobbyists (and some nuclear lobbyists still going for the perceived easy target of renewables, as rediculous as it is…) with the goal to disrupt the energy transition.
And the majority here actually believes they are anti-fossil fuels while they actually parrot their propaganda (for example the “Germany stopped nuclear power to burn more coal”-fairy tale you can read a hundred times by now here - only invented for the talking point of coal being needed, when Germany is actually at a historic low in use) and thus constantly running (objectively wrong) talking points against renewable power.
On one hand I love the obvious panic of fossil fuel lobbyists getting more desperate and rediculous in their massaging by the day. On the other hand, they already brain-washed a massive amount of people that I fear are really lost and will fight tooth and nails against a reasonable green transition to pursue their fantasies of “sane” nuclear build-up (that isn’t sane because nobody is actually building enough capoacities to make sense mathematically), without that “non-working” storage (that nuclear power actually needs to be economically viable) and “expensive” renewables (same, same…).
- jabjoe ( @jabjoe@feddit.uk ) English2•10 months ago
You get it. But at the end of the day, the fossil fuel companies will lose because of economics. Renewable energy and electrification is cheaper and better and planet saving. There will be economic feedback loops kicking in as less fuel is used, taking up the price.
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 2•10 months ago
But “in the end” isn’t fast enough for my taste… or for the taste of people losing their homes or base of life to floods, draughts, forest fires and so on.
And it won’t even get better but just worse even if we stopped co2 emission completely today. We would have need that feedback loop a decade ago. Instead the same lobbyists now sabotaging it got a lot of renewables killed the moment they were too cheap to compete.
If you draw a curve of deployed solar and wind power, the last decade is a hole that basically threw us back more than the missed time even.
And even if renewables take over for economicla reasons now, they will just change tactic and instead sabotage storage and infrastructure to keep fossil fuels relevant.
Germany had a very coal heavy power prodcution originally and massively build up renewables… and the lobbyists were already ahead… they blocked grid extensions to create pockets depending on coal no matter how much cheap green electricity is available. They blocked grid extensions to make diversification less effective. They -also for that reason- pushed antiwind sentiments in one part of the country and anti-solar in another. They made storage commercially unviable by massive double taxation (once as an end consumer while loading, then as a producer while unloading).
And they did all that basically without anyone taking much notice because they also -and much more visible- blocked wind and solar power in general (ffs… they killed a 100k people industry and sold it off to China just because solar was getting too cheap).
Yes, renewables are extremely cheap. So cheap in fact that people fight for their chance to build solar and wind in designated areas instead of wanting subsidies like for other power production. But if we don’t take a very close and constant look, we will be surprised in a decade how all those renewables did not actually help reduce co2 much as the 10-year-infrastructure plans for storage and grid are suddenly about lagging 9 years behind. Just look at such basic projects like the north-south grid connection in Germany. The 10-year plan to build SüdLink is scheduled to be done in ~6 years now… after 12 years. 100% sponsored by conservative local politicians and conservative nimbys cosplaying as environmentalists.
- jabjoe ( @jabjoe@feddit.uk ) English2•10 months ago
Never give up hope. That’s what fossil fuels companies want.
In 2005 me and my now wife watched “Who Killed the electric car” and it felt hopeless. Now we both drive EVs and you see more and more of them on the road. Home solar used to be a pipe dream, but now I know more people with it and hope to set it up myself. My electricity provider claims 100% renewables. We plan to remove gas use from the house.
Germany will hurt itself by not looking forwards, and as that becomes more and apparent, it will be harder to maintain. Fossil fuel money will start to reduce and with that, it’s corruption of politics and information. At some point, I hope some jail time is handed out to those who knowing slowly climate against for money. Now, climate action and money are more and more lined up. Always have been long term, but now short term too. Aligned on energy and thus everything down stream of energy. Which a lot of stuff!
Australia’s Teals movement shows common sense can win out.
- I_Has_A_Hat ( @I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml ) 6•10 months ago
It’s amazing how all these countries set weak goal
It’s can kicking. Make a promise for something 25 years in the future. Who cares if the country can’t meet it? You’ll likely be out of office or retired by that point. That’s the next person’s problem.
- IninewCrow ( @ininewcrow@lemmy.ca ) English5•10 months ago
We’re all going to die lol
I agree … but that attitude also encourages people, especially leaders … and especially the billionaires that control this world … to believe that destruction is the ultimate end and to just play along, pick up as much wealth as possible while you can and do whatever you please because the end is near.
- queermunist she/her ( @queermunist@lemmy.ml ) 5•10 months ago
As if billionaires needed more reasons to pick up as much wealth as possible while they can lol
- qyron ( @qyron@sopuli.xyz ) 43•10 months ago
Not german but I’m in the same continent and in a country that nobody really cares about and we are nearing the threshold where renewables produce more than we require to run the country.
Funny thing is, private citizens are doing more for that effort alone than government in real terms because saving money is high on the priorities list here and free, renewable energy is a good thing, even more if you can produce it yourself.
Meanwhile, we’ve been fighting the government to cancel the authorization to log nearly 2000 old growth cork oaks for installing a solar panel farm when we have a lot of room to plant off shore wind farms.
Nobody really understands what is going on.
- agarorn ( @agarorn@feddit.de ) 8•10 months ago
Which country?
- qyron ( @qyron@sopuli.xyz ) 10•10 months ago
Portugal
- agarorn ( @agarorn@feddit.de ) 6•10 months ago
Oh nice. Yeah, Portugal runs under the radar here. I found rhis https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/portugal
Seems like you got rid of coal already. Oil/gas seem to hover however. Do you have plans about getting rid of fuel cars? And what do you use gas for? In Germany it’s mostly heating, I would have guessed you don’t need so much heating in Portugal and can use the AC in winter.
And good look with these oaks, I hate forest being cut down.
- qyron ( @qyron@sopuli.xyz ) 4•10 months ago
There a few incentives towards the purchase of eletric cars but its something still way out of reach for the majority of people. But the number of eletric cars is rising.
Gas is mostly used to run a few eletric generation plants. AC is a doubled edge sword here as houses are poorly insulated and the minimal recommmended power for having an equipment is 10.35Kva, which is a power requirement where all VAT is applied at 23%. The equipments are also very expensive and the installation even more.
And thank. Lets hope we can make enough noise to have to trees left alone
- notapantsday ( @notapantsday@feddit.de ) 3•10 months ago
cork oaks
Portugal! What a wonderful country full of wonderful people. We do care about you and your delicious but slightly greasy food.
- qyron ( @qyron@sopuli.xyz ) 1•10 months ago
You’ve been eating at the wrong places… that’s a spanish thing: too much olive oil on every dish and too much fat on every cured meat
- notapantsday ( @notapantsday@feddit.de ) 1•10 months ago
I just remember a sandwich covered in melted cheese with an egg on top and some kind of sauce. And a lot of delicious fried food. Both usually with fries as a side dish. Never any salad unless I specifically ordered it. I’m sure I could have gone to lots of restaurants where they would have had lighter meals, but I was on holiday so greasy was perfect.
- qyron ( @qyron@sopuli.xyz ) 2•10 months ago
Francesinha.
You can get those swimming in a pool of fat and you can get it very lean and clean.
You’ve been to Porto, right?
The make or break for that dish is the sauce. Some people can make it very heavy and some are capable of making it very light. Just know the amount of booze it goes in it could fuel a small plane.
Then comes the cheese and some places just overdo it. Four or five thin slices are enough but I do know some places throw half a block over every sandwhich.
I apologise for the fries. That’s fast food influence. And the egg was unexpected; that’s an addition from the croque madame.
Hope you had fun here.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•10 months ago
Easy mistake, isn’t it? Spain is next door.
- qyron ( @qyron@sopuli.xyz ) 2•10 months ago
From Spain, we don’t get neither good winds nor good weddings…
It’s tiresome. We, as a nation, exist for longer. Our language, culture, traditions, manerisms, etc, are different. We are not a part of Spain and we are not their bretheren, unlike many like to tell.
Our first king mother was a spanish woman and he decided to leave home by waging war on his mother, kill her lover and burn the lands where they lived.
So, it is understandable we dislike to be overlooked or mistaken as spanish
- lntl ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 34•10 months ago
This is the German plan:
- Shutdown the nuclear plants
- Burn more lignite
- WFH
The council said assumptions made by the transport ministry on the effectiveness of the planned and already implemented measures, such as a discounted national rail ticket, a CO2 surcharge on truck tolls and increased working from home, were also optimistic. “Private vehicle individual transport is not addressed, so to speak. And that is ultimately a gap in the transport programme,” Brigitte Knopf, deputy chairwoman of the council, told a news conference presenting the report findings on Tuesday
The plan for transportation emissions, 2/3 of the target to be cut, is WFH. Yikes!
- Sodis ( @Sodis@feddit.de ) 17•10 months ago
@Grimpen@lemmy.ca You are misinformed there. The energy sector reaches its goal and offshore wind farms and solar panels are actually over-performing, meaning more are built than was planned for this year. The sectors largely missing their goals are the transport and the building sector.
- Grimpen ( @Grimpen@lemmy.ca ) 16•10 months ago
If only there was some means of replacing all that coal with a non-carbon intensive source of energy that isn’t dependant on the weather…
Has anyone heard of such a technology?
Sarcasm aside, that Germany shut down their last two nuclear reactors so recently and carried through is astounding. The excuses are mind-boggling. They’re old? Refurbishing is cheaper and faster than new built. They need re-certification? Then do it.
- Killing_Spark ( @Killing_Spark@feddit.de ) 23•10 months ago
It’s more efficient to use the money required for
- The inspection
- The renovations
- Acquiring new fuel
And spend it on renewables than to do the above.
Also a big factor noone seems to care about: staff. The people who worked there have other jobs now. You can’t just plop a reactor plant somewhere and expect it to make electricity you need highly specialised staff for that. We also did not invest into training new staff because why would we, with the stop for nuclear power being decided 10 years ago.
- cedeho ( @cedeho@feddit.de ) 15•10 months ago
If all the subsidiaries that went into nuclear power the last few decades went to renewables instead Germany would have no issues at all, but hey… giving tax payer money to some very few giant energy companies is more important than creating a Europe leading renewables energy sector that does not rely on russian fossils or nuclear material.
You should know that nuclear power is very expensive while renewables are absurd crazy cheap. I’ve been to a German Endlager and it takes years and BILLIONS of Euros just to seal this thing off. Guess who is paying? Mostly tax payers.
There’s be no company in Germany which would be willing to run a nuclear power plant if they were responsible for the permanent disposal of their waste on their own instead of letting the tax payer pay (most of) for it.
- lntl ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
That’s all well and good in the energy sector. What about transportation? If I understand correctly, transportation makes up the majority of the emissions Germany aims to cut
- Zacryon ( @Zacryon@feddit.de ) 5•10 months ago
Sadly, we have a long history of incompetent transport ministers. That didn’t change with the last elections.
- GenEcon ( @GenEcon@lemm.ee ) 9•10 months ago
Funny, because the energy sector was the only on track to fulfill the targets. Last year it even overshot its targets and is expected to again save more CO2 as planned in 2023.
Maybe, just maybe, its more relevant that other sectors are managed by the FDP (market liberals) and SPD (social democrats), while energy is managed by die Grünen (greens).
- lntl ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
Do you know about the transportation sector? It is where 2/3 of Germanys planned reduction is.
- Uranium3006 ( @Uranium3006@kbin.social ) 24•10 months ago
getting rid of nuclear power for russian gas was always a bad idea and this is why
- ValiantDust ( @ValiantDust@feddit.de ) 33•10 months ago
Except that never happened. Gas is mostly used for heating in Germany, not for electricity like nuclear power. I don’t know where this rumour started (probably somewhere on reddit) but it’s just not true.
Edit: Just to be clear, I’m not saying that relying so much on Russian gas was a good move or that we couldn’t (and shouldn’t) have done a lot more to move away from coal. But that particular argument is misinformation.
- salton ( @salton@reddthat.com ) 8•10 months ago
Germany doesn’t get all of its electrical power by renewable meness by a long shot. Nuclear plants were prematurely shut down before their end of life while at the same time germanies reliance on fossil fuels went up. This is what everyone is talking about.
- notapantsday ( @notapantsday@feddit.de ) 16•10 months ago
That is just misinformation. First of all, nuclear power never contributed that much anyway. If all nuclear power plants ever built in Germany were running at full load 24/7 for 365 days of the year, they would produce 231 TWh, which is less than 10% of our total energy demand. So there was never that big of a hole to fill in the first place. Especially in the last ten years, when only a handful of power plants were still in service.
In reality, renewables have managed to replace both nuclear power and a large chunk of fossil fuels (source). Last year we had to export enormous amounts of energy to France, because their nuclear plants had proven so unreliable (source). This has admittedly led to an increased use of fossil fuels, which we could have avoided by building more renewables here (or in France).
- ValiantDust ( @ValiantDust@feddit.de ) 12•10 months ago
I just called out this particular piece of misinformation. Being of the opinion that Germany shut down nuclear power plant prematurely doesn’t make it okay to spread misinformation, does it?
- salton ( @salton@reddthat.com ) 1•10 months ago
You haven’t shown a single piece of evidence to show that I’m wrong. I can just throw back to you that what your saying is pure missingormation.
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 2•10 months ago
And if you tell that lie annother million times it will become true.
Really! you just need to nelieve real hard in ti and then reality will adapt and the propaganda hammered into your head will finally become true.
- ExLisper ( @ExLisper@linux.community ) English4•10 months ago
Hey, Schroeder got paid so it also wasn’t totally bad idea.
- 🦄🦄🦄 ( @Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de ) 24•10 months ago
Shit I had hoped we could leave the nuclear stans over at reddit.
- airportline ( @airportline@lemmy.ml ) English17•10 months ago
What’s wrong with nuclear?
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 16•10 months ago
Nothing in general. Well the build times are rediculous in Europe and planning right not to build nuclear soon is too late already for any agreed upon climate goal. But that’s another matter…
The problem is the brain-washed nuclear cult on social media briganding everything. In the last year on Reddit you couldn’t even post any report about any new opening of wind or solar power without it degenerating into always the same story: “bUt ReNeWaBlEs DoN’t WoRk! StOrAgE DoEs’Nt ExIsT! tHeY aRe A sCaM tO bUrN mOrE FoSsIl FuElS! gErMaNy KiLlEd ThEir NuClEaR To BuRn MoRe CoAl BeCaUsE ThEy ArE InSanE!!”
Mentioning the fact that Germany in reality shut down reactors not even contributing 5% of their electricity production that were scheduled for shutdown for 30 years and in a state you would expect with that plan and already more than replaced by renewables got you donwvoted into oblivion every single time.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 5•10 months ago
Reality is uncomfortable for the idealist. But ultimate any sustainable future MUST include nuclear and everything you sarcastically dismissed with that childish spongebob typing is just the reality of our world society. You may as well get upset about how we didn’t leave the “reality stans,” back on reddit.
In fact, I should turn this back on you, I’m upset about the coal-stans that apparently migrated over here from reddit. If there is any world where you want to claim to be “green,” coal CANNOT be any part of the conversation. If it is, you have failed and don’t’ get to discuss environmentalism anymore.
- AAA ( @AAA@feddit.de ) 8•10 months ago
Except nobody is advocating coal. So what do you want to turn back on him exactly?
Just because you developed a hate boner for anyone who’s not on your nuclear train doesn’t mean they’re pro coal. If you need to put words in others people’s mouths to confirm yourself… you’re wrong.
With your reaction you just confirmed what he described.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 2•10 months ago
If you aren’t pro-nuclear you are pro-coal, thats the reality. No one is replacing nuclear reactors with anything but coal. The development of wind and solar generation is going to happen regardless, but for every nuclear plant that Germany shut down, they opened, or re-opened a coal plant.
- AAA ( @AAA@feddit.de ) 2•10 months ago
Saying “that’s the reality” doesn’t make it a reality. You can repeat it as often as you want, it makes you look like a self absorbed jerk - because it’s simply not true. Just because it’s a nice narrative to push for you not every opponent to nuclear energy is a proponent to coal. Quite the contrary I’d figure.
The single last coal plant started operation in 2020, and none has been “re-opened”. Some are kept in prolonged reserve mode until 2024 (half a year longer than originally planned), IF the Alarmstufe Gas stays in effect.
Maybe try with some verifiable facts and stop lying.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow I guess “reactivating coal power plants” means something different in the original German, an must be semantically different then “re-opened.” Also note that natural gas is still a fossil fuel that has the dubious distinction of being “better” then coal, but infinitely worse then Nuclear.
Now if you are against nuclear energy, it means you have to have a replacement in mind and all replacements for Nuclear Power Plants are fossil fuel based. There isn’t another option. Wind/Solar are great, there is no one accusing you of being against renewables. But renewables are NOT replacements for Nuclear or Fossil Fuel based power. So there is your choice. Pro-Nuclear or Pro-Fossil fuel.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•10 months ago
I mean, in theory, coal burning could be made clean. Capture the carbon out of the exhaust, collect it into a solid block, bury it, done. Problem is the power plants will only pretend to do this, and not actually do it.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 8•10 months ago
Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody’s interested in building them unless they’ve got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody’s interested in insuring them in full (unless it’s the government). Nobody’s interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.
- barsoap ( @barsoap@lemm.ee ) 5•10 months ago
Speaking about the safety record here’s what final storage looks like in Germany. That’s another eight billion Euros of cleanup costs right there. I’m not usually that crass but whoever ok’d fucking dumping fucking nuclear waste in a fucking salt mine (unsurprisingly, yes, there’s water incursions) deserves to be shot.
In a nutshell the sentiment in Germany is that the only people that can be trusted to not play it fast and loose with nuclear safety are the Greens, and the Greens rather don’t want to deal with it either so we have a decision.
- anteaters ( @anteaters@feddit.de ) English1•10 months ago
Surely the next time they want to get rid of waste they’ll do better! Pinkie promise!
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 4•10 months ago
If you see the environment as just another way to profit, and you assume that we can’t save the environment because it costs too much, you are just another shitty fossil fuel executive, but worse because at least the fossil fuel executives get paid for their short-term ideas, you are just supporting them and thereby standing by as hundreds of millions of people are condemned to death, hopefully including yourself, for literally nothing.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 8•10 months ago
So, you’re going to spend, billions, to build a nuclear powerplant, that will decarbonise at a slower rate, never turn a profit, be an economic sinkhole megaproject, or, you could just build a solar panel or wind turbine in like, a year, where it’ll be functional and working. Profits allow you to reinvest into more projects. Losses, mean you’re putting endless amounts of money into less.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
Again if you are worried about “turning a profit” you don’t give a fuck about the environment and need to leave.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 2•10 months ago
If you’re constantly pouring money into a loss-making industry, it means you’re not efficiently managing your resources to build more projects. Profits from renewables can be reinvested before a single plant can’t be constructed. And that nuclear plant, will never make enough profit to build another.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
What the fuck is the point of “making a profit?” The world is burning because of profits. If all fossil fuel plants were taxed at 1,000,000 Million per ton of carbon emissions would you support nuclear then?
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•10 months ago
What’s your proposed solution for the energy storage problem?
- IWantToFuckSpez ( @IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social ) 21•10 months ago
Wow what a surprise, guess brown coal isn’t good for the climate. Bunch of idiots those German politicians. They even tried to weaken that EU bill that bans the sale of new fossil fuel cars.
- elouboub ( @elouboub@kbin.social ) 6•10 months ago
Voted in by German citizens.
- DrWeevilJammer ( @DrWeevilJammer@lemmy.ml ) 14•10 months ago
Who have been subjected to targeted information warfare/propaganda for years.
- elouboub ( @elouboub@kbin.social ) 5•10 months ago
Awww, poor German people. Never learned to think for themselves. Just learned how to follow orders.
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 6•10 months ago
You don’t realize how incredible funny (or sad… depending on perpective) it is to see people like you parrot the same lie spoon-fed to you by lobbyists again and again while talking about other being too stupid to think.
This incredible post-factual world where popular narrative trumps reality is truely lost…
- elouboub ( @elouboub@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
Lol, what an egoistic view of the world. “Everybody else is to blame but me”. It’s all those lobbyists, immigrants, bankers, politicians, nazis, antifa, that boogeyman over there! But me? Nah, I’m perfect and all my friends and family never do anything wrong. In fact, anybody who I can identify with is globally right.
Now that’s sad.
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 3•10 months ago
Yes, it looks egoistic if you are this deluded as you are.
But we have real problems to solve and can’t save every propaganda victim that refuses to accept reality because you run on the usual hateful narrative about Germany. Hey, I don’t even blame you. Telling a lie about Germany any time you need to divert from some own issue is a well honored tradition in Europe (and thus wide-spread in media) and so I understand that you were trained to follow that pattern. It’s sad (or funny… I still haven’t decided…) none-the-less.
So you can cry about those imaginary egoistic Germans of yours all you want. The actual ones are massively building up renewables, are -contrary to your beloved lies- on a historic low in coal use. And this report is actually about the transport and construction sectors not matching their emission reduction goals (while sectors liker energy or industry -the actual sources of coal use- are easily fullfilling theirs… but that’s not mentioned because -as I said before- energy and industry are not even remotely the topic of this report.)
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•10 months ago
What makes you think that person only thinks poorly of German low-information voters? Low-information voters are a plague around the world.
- Sodis ( @Sodis@feddit.de ) 2•10 months ago
Hey, the FDP has the most ambitious climate policies of all parties! At least so they said.
- agarorn ( @agarorn@feddit.de ) 3•10 months ago
Luckily we will get rid of coal soon.
- notapantsday ( @notapantsday@feddit.de ) 1•10 months ago
I hope so…
- friendlymessage ( @friendlymessage@feddit.de ) 21•10 months ago
No matter the platform worldnews comments contain mainly ignorant, overconfident bullshit. Glad to know that there are some things in life one can depend upon.
- Recant ( @Recant@beehaw.org ) English19•10 months ago
I wonder if they would ever reconsider what they did for the deactivation of nuclear power plants.
- jmcs ( @jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de ) 39•10 months ago
Because uranium appears out of thin air and it’s not being extracted in politically volatile areas. Every Euro that’s spent on a nuclear reactor is an euro that would be better spent on renewable energies.
- GivingEuropeASpook ( @GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee ) English18•10 months ago
And of course, the materials that go into solar panels and other renewable tech (lithium ion batteries) also appear out of thin air and isn’t extracted in environmentally degrading ways…
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 17•10 months ago
Depends. Renewables are faster at decarbonising than nuclear. Only if we’re starting from scratch. They’re also cheaper, and at scale, more reliable. Difference here was, Germany shut down existing nuclear before they could ramp up renewables. I will add that this is the most generous argument to maintain nuclear.
- Recant ( @Recant@beehaw.org ) English13•10 months ago
That’s true but couldn’t that also be said for the rare earth metals used in batteries to power phones and EVs?
No energy production is perfect. Just good to look at the pros and cons.
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 7•10 months ago
Clearly that only matters with nuclear and magically doesn’t happen in any other case
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 9•10 months ago
People also think that nuclear is some sort of magical thing that provides cheap unlimited energy on demand, when really it’s an expensive, lumbering option, that is slow to construct and difficult to maintain. There’s a reason why even China prefers renewables over nuclear, and they have reactors for military research.
- zephyreks ( @zephyreks@programming.dev ) 6•10 months ago
You should probably tell China that, then…
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 4•10 months ago
I don’t have to tell China they’re finding it out themselves. Yes, China leads in deploying nuclear, for various reasons. Energy, research, military. But despite this, renewables represents by far the largest investment and growth. Though China’s nuclear energy ambitions seem large, don’t forget, it’s a huge country. It’s just a small piece of the pie, the pie being dominated by renewables.
- zephyreks ( @zephyreks@programming.dev ) 2•10 months ago
Ah yes… The classic primary source of an op ed from CU Boulder, which isn’t exactly known for having a great Asian Studies program.
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 4•10 months ago
It’s almost as if that’s why the gold standard is a nuclear baseline with renewable to meet demand spikes.
- notapantsday ( @notapantsday@feddit.de ) 3•10 months ago
That’s not how renewables work. They don’t produce electricity on demand (at least not solar and wind), their energy output is dependent on the weather. If there’s no wind and no sun, they won’t cover any demand spikes. Which is why baseload power like nuclear is pretty much useless in combination with renewables.
What is actually needed is flexible power that can be quickly adapted to the varying output from solar and wind. This is currently mostly done with natural gas, which we’re trying to get away from. In the future, biomass, water and storage will cover that part, while demand response strategies will help reduce demand peaks during times of low energy production.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 3•10 months ago
If there is no wind or sun, we’re facing a global apocalypse. There’s always wind or sun. You just need to capture it. Nuclear is not on demand either, most plants aren’t designed to be. Nuclear is designed to be baseload energy, which, for decades, has fallen out of favour in lieu of more flexible doctrines. Octopus Energy is doing quite a bit of work with AI and energy demand, using incentives to control public energy consumption, which reduces the backup you would need for renewables. Also, that study I referenced, presumes about a 25% decrease in cost of nuclear. Again, best case scenario for nuclear.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•10 months ago
Oh good, biomass. Because there aren’t enough starving people in the world already.
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
Man, the existence of batteries is going to blow your mind
Edit: Just realized I think you missed the main point. You want a (functionally) 100% reliable baseline to meet your energy needs. That’s why you don’t use renewables, at the moment anyway. You want as much renewable as possible on top of that.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 2•10 months ago
There is some evidence to suggest a small nuclear presence in an otherwise majority renewables grid, can be ideal. But this is the most generous position you can have for nuclear.
- jmcs ( @jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de ) 4•10 months ago
So we should back ourselves into a corner when we have alternatives, because we don’t have alternatives for everything?
- AggressivelyPassive ( @agressivelyPassive@feddit.de ) 27•10 months ago
I wonder if any of the nuclear bros on here ever consider, that jerking a fuel rod isn’t always the best approach?
Seriously, every fucking time this comes up and every fucking time you guys show nothing but arrogance and ignorance, both usually weapons grade.
- Recant ( @Recant@beehaw.org ) English26•10 months ago
I don’t understand the hostility. Germany made a conscious decision to turn off their nuclear power plants.
Facts are facts. Nuclear power is the 2nd safest power generation method per terawatt hour. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Additionally there are ways to recycle nuclear fuel. Most often the arguments against nuclear are fueled by emotion and not fact based.
- Hasuris ( @Hasuris@sopuli.xyz ) 23•10 months ago
Germany isn’t failing its climate goals because of getting rid of nuclear power. In 2018 6,3% of our energy (not just electricity) came from nuclear power. May all the nuclear chills please kindly stfu?
Letting those few remaining nuclear power plants stay active for another few years would’ve done jack shit. We’re failing because of shortcomings in many sectors. The worst offenders currently are housing (~25% of total CO2 emissions) and transportation (19%).
- GigglyBobble ( @GigglyBobble@kbin.social ) 12•10 months ago
I don’t understand the hostility
Possibly a German Green. They are hostile like that towards nuclear. Ironically that made the German Green Party effectively a coal party (they don’t like to hear that).
- AggressivelyPassive ( @agressivelyPassive@feddit.de ) 8•10 months ago
Every single statement you’ve written is false.
- Recant ( @Recant@beehaw.org ) English3•10 months ago
I wonder why your username is AggressivelyPassive. More like AggressivelyAggressive ha.
- AggressivelyPassive ( @agressivelyPassive@feddit.de ) 2•10 months ago
Dissent is extremely aggressive, yes.
How dare I not having the same opinion as you?
- explodicle ( @explodicle@local106.com ) English2•10 months ago
The German Greens aren’t hostile towards nuclear?
- AggressivelyPassive ( @agressivelyPassive@feddit.de ) 2•10 months ago
Against it, not hostile. That’s a difference.
They even agreed to extend the shutdown date last year. Not exactly hostile behavior.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 12•10 months ago
Perhaps the timetable for them could’ve been extended, but when literally one of the largest nuclear power companies in the world prefers renewables, and balks at the cost of opening a nuclear powerplant without significant government guarantees and subsidies, that should tell you something. The nuclear argument is usually fuelled by the mining lobby. Even China, who does not care for public opinion, and has an active nuclear stake for military purposes, prefers renewables. The only argument for Germany was the when was the appropriate time to shut down the reactors, not that it shouldn’t have been done.
- Fenix ( @Fenix@feddit.de ) 3•10 months ago
I’d like to add that the agreement to shut down the nuclear power plants was made years in advance anyways. Shortly after Fukushima the german political parties voted for that, even the conservatives. Talks began even before that because there’s never been a definitive place for the final storage of fuel rods and other waste, this is still not solved for the current waste btw.
The only thing I can really agree on, is that Germany should’ve been much better prepared at that point. Everyone acted like this came out of thin air and something the current parties in power decided on a whim.
Adding to this, german energy providers wouldn’t even consider starting up the plants again:
https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/atom-kraft-laufzeit-verlaengerung-100.amp
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/die-nutzung-der-kernenergie-hat-sich-erledigt-6607834.html
- PatrickYaa ( @PatrickYaa@lemmy.one ) 1•10 months ago
Germany was better prepared. The plan was to use natural gas. Which was cheaply supplied by Russia. Who woulda thunk that relying on mining operations in despotic countries could be such a bad decision? Goes for Gas as well as Uranium…
- GigglyBobble ( @GigglyBobble@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
balks at the cost of opening a nuclear powerplant without significant government guarantees and subsidies, that should tell you something.
It tells of sane business, yes. The German government is completely unreliable with regards to nuclear power. Remember, a CDU chancellor eventually shut them down - the supposed right party that used to fight for prolonged lifetime of the plants. Any sane businessperson would request legal safety before making a huge investment that only pays off over decades.
- GivingEuropeASpook ( @GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee ) English11•10 months ago
Well duh? Are they nationalizing all carbon emitting industries to begin a managed decline of the industry or are they hoping economic magic and wishful thinking will work?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BERLIN, Aug 22 (Reuters) - German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed, meaning a longer-term net zero by a 2045 target is also in doubt, reports by government climate advisers and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) show.
“According to the current status, Germany would still emit 229 million tonnes of climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions in the target year 2045,” the UBA report found.
Under pressure from the pro-business FDP party, the ruling coalition in June agreed to dilute a bill to phase out oil and gas heating systems from 2024.
Building minister Klara Geywitz said the sector was making progress but needs improvements in some areas to close the emissions gap, adding that climate protection measures should be practical and doable to avoid overtaxing people.
The council said assumptions made by the transport ministry on the effectiveness of the planned and already implemented measures, such as a discounted national rail ticket, a CO2 surcharge on truck tolls and increased working from home, were also optimistic.
And that is ultimately a gap in the transport programme," Brigitte Knopf, deputy chairwoman of the council, told a news conference presenting the report findings on Tuesday.
The original article contains 679 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 5•10 months ago
Hopefully they wake up to reality and follow Sweden’s approach
- johnnyb ( @johnnyb@discuss.tchncs.de ) 10•10 months ago
yeah sure, nuclear powerplants finished in the late 40th are gonna solve our current problems (if that’s the approach you are talking about)
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 4•10 months ago
Sure as fuck better than setting targets you know you’re not going to hit and then acting all shocked when you don’t
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 11•10 months ago
The targets got missed by construction (some small part) and transport (mainly)… and again like clockwork the brain-washed nuclear brigade storms in lying about electricity production.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 8•10 months ago
Is it though? You’d need to cut the price of nuclear by about 1/4. Even then, renewables are faster at decarbonisation. Not that nuclear represented a large amount of the German grid in the first place. Best case scenario for Germany, is extending the lifespan of their plants not more than a few years.
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
Sitting here and complaining about how long it’ll take once we start, and as such never actually starting, is exactly how we got here.
Best time was 40 years ago, second best time is now.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 7•10 months ago
It’s actually the worst time to get started on nuclear. Costs keep going up. There’s a reason why countries overwhelmingly prefer to invest in renewables over nuclear. This includes nuclear companies. EDF is one of the largest investors in renewables, and it’s actually the profitable side of the business. It’s going to be the taxpayer that’s going to pay for nuclear, and they’re not going to get their money’s worth, as opposed to renewables.
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
This just in, when you arbitrarily raise the barrier of entry to a market, the price goes up.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 5•10 months ago
You can’t go cheap on nuclear. Otherwise you’re looking at a myriad of political corruption and safety concerns, which in part will cost you a government, where you’ll eventually have to start all over again. Or you could just invest in renewables. Like what China is overwhelmingly doing.
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
But that’s excactly not was it happening. Keeping the remaining reactors alive (they provided ~2,6% of the generated electricity btw…) just for the sake of keeping them would have slowed down renewables (as those old reactors are definitely not fit to adapt to fluctuations well) and would also have bound a lot of money then missing for renewables and infra-structure (why upgrade the grid to better renewable fluctuations when the reactors can’t anyway).
So they actually start right now and massively so to build up renewables and the matching infra-structure. Unlike countries with alleged nuclear plans, that all still plan to start building soon™ and in most cases not even close to the actual required numbers for the projected demand in two decades+. Because completely decarbonising transport, industry and heating means a massive increase in electricity demand as we basically shift all primary energy demand over to electricity. Yes, in some cases electrity will be more efficient and will save some energy. But we are still talking about all primary energy, with electricity today often only making up 20-25% of the primary energy demand in most countries today.
PS: But yes, if you want to build nuclear. Start today. But do it on a scale that you will be actually able to cover the minimal required base load of your projected electricity demand in 2050+… Fun fact: No country actually does. They all just pretend and actually sit the problem out for someone else by loudly planning nuclear but not in amounts that make sense mathematically. France is basically the only country with a somewhat reasonable plan. When they scrap the “8 optional reactors” bullshit and build the bull set of 14. That’s their required baseload. And they will need to keep their aging fleet functional until the majority of them are build. They will also not be trivial.
- elouboub ( @elouboub@kbin.social ) 6•10 months ago
Once it becomes more profitable to betray oil, gas, and coal companies, it’ll happen. Not a moment sooner.
- Alto ( @Alto@kbin.social ) 3•10 months ago
Unfortunately we’ll already be doomed long before that happens
- explodicle ( @explodicle@local106.com ) English2•10 months ago
Unless something “unfortunate” were to happen that might impact profitability.
- elouboub ( @elouboub@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
It’s a party then?
- agarorn ( @agarorn@feddit.de ) 2•10 months ago
What is Swedens approach?
- Ooops ( @Ooops@kbin.social ) 4•10 months ago
The usual fantasizing about nuclear and failing any actual plan, very popular right now. Because nuclear lobbyists pay well.
Or more precise: They want to build more nuclear power. But of course all their planned and their existing nuclear combined will not even be remotely enough to cover just the minimal required base load in a few decades. Because changing most of our primary energy demand (industry, heating, transport in varying shares) to electricity (that is often only making up 20%+ in a lot of countries) will massively increase the demand.
If you are not building (or planning to start the build-up very, very soon) enough nuclear capacity to cover 80% or more of today’s electricity demand then you will not have the minimal base load required in 2-3 decades, because there will be an increase by at least a factor of 2,5 in demand.
But that’s not something you tell people as nobody has a clue how to pay for building even more nuclear (where “even more” means the actual needed amount)…
(A few exceptions with massive hydro potential aside -as they have access to that cheaper base load- there is exactly one country with a plan that works mathematically: France. And even their government is lying to their people when they talk about 6 new reactors with another 8 optional. Because the full set of 14 is the required minimum they will need in 2050 and onward (their old ones are not in a state to run mcuh longer than that).
But hey. Even the most pro-nuclear country and the one with a domestic indutry actually doing a lot of the nuclear build up for other countries can’t tell their population the trutz about costs and minimla requirements. If you want to know just onme thing about the state of nuclear, that this should be it.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
Who the fuck are paying nuclear lobbyist? Do they even exist? Like is “Big Nuclear” real? Can I get a job there? I’d love to get paid a shit load to go to the same dinners fossil fuel executives go to, but I’d get to actually advocate for something worthwhile and that would improve life in the future.
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
Yeah, it genuinely is. Doesn’t take too long to find the lobby groups. A lot of funding comes from mining. Also, RAB funding (from the government) allows nuclear companies to earn a profit without having the plant completed yet. So there is money to be made. Ever wonder why there’s a lot of pro-nuke videos on YouTube? Rather than academic spaces? Which time and again shows you that renewables are superior in virtually every way?
- Arcturus ( @Arcturus@kbin.social ) 1•10 months ago
Sweden’s approach is over.
They have no targets, the industry isn’t interested, and the government’s analysis has been based on nothing.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Q70mzQ/regeringen-svanger-om-karnkraftsreaktorerna
- barsoap ( @barsoap@lemm.ee ) 3•10 months ago
Nein!
- gigachad ( @gigachad@feddit.de ) 3•10 months ago
Doch!
- barsoap ( @barsoap@lemm.ee ) 3•10 months ago
Ohh…