Such a pain to look at the inaction and the empty promises...
https://ourworldindata.org/worlds-energy-problem
@g
In the article, it is possible to see the data by country, here for example: #Germany #Electricity production from #fossilfuels, #nuclear and #renewables.
@gerald_leppert
From the graph, if they did not pull out of nuclear they would be generating ~80% energy with zero emissions... sad.
@g
@gerald_leppert
The pull out horizons should have been the other way round IMHO. Coals out first and then nuclear. It might have made sense for earthquake and tsunami prone countries like Japan but for most of EU I fail to see the logic other than unfounded fear.
There is really little evidence suggesting it made any sense to stop nuclear and boost coal. The evidence to the contrary is instead vast.
The news cycle seems unable to get through public consciousness that about *half a million* people every year die prematurely of air pollution in Europe, largely due to burning fossil fuels. Random link: https://www.dw.com/en/air-pollution-kills-half-a-million-people-in-europe-eu-agency-reports/a-40920041
This obviously means many thousands in Germany. *Every year*.
Looking at this other article by "Our World in Data" is illustrative. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
The graphs and scholarly references are all there, but I screenshot here the narrative part that explains it best.
Long term, renewable is obviously best. Short term, early closing of nuclear powerplants allegedly because of environment or safety concern is simpy nonsense.
@g
I agree. Here is another - Erik Sundell (teacher and open source developer) summarizing why sunsetting nuclear energy so early doesn't make sense:
@ashwinvis @g @brombek
The exit from nuclear energy in Germany had been discussed since the 1980s and decided in 2011. There were many reasons for the exit, incl. environmental reasons. The exit from coal energy was discussed since ~2014 (anti coal movement) and passed the parliament only this year (Jan 2020).
Environmental and climate protection don't necessarily have the same means, but IMHO it wouldn't be wise to play off environmental protection and climate protection against each other.
@gerald_leppert
What would be the environmental protection benefit of phasing out of nuclear before coal?
As far as I know the energy density of uranium makes the extraction far less destructive than coal mines in terms of kWh produced by total extracted mass.
I don't mean that we should not try to abandon nuclear fission, but doing so while energy demand increased was (IMO) not the best move, to say the least.
@ashwinvis @g @brombek
@tfardet
(1/2)
It's difficult to compare the phasing-out of nuclear and coal energy in Germany, because the discourses happened at very different times.
With regard to nuclear energy, out of the many reasons for the exit (e.g. geostrategic reasons like Germany as denuclearized zone; radiation risk and effects; low economic efficiency of nuclear energy), the following environmental points were raised in the debate (as far as I recall):
[continued in next post]
@tfardet
(2/2)
• Nuclear disasters like Fukushima, Chernobyl and problematic plants like Greifswald DE, Tihange BE, Doel BE, Fessenheim FR, Temelin CZ
• In a densely populated country like DE it's almost impossible to find a nuclear repository; there is still none. Nucl. waste is stored temporarily, with confirmed leakages
• Nuclear (to a lesser extent coal) industry's heavy lobbying against environmental laws and renewables
• Environm. impact of uranium mining/processing
@ashwinvis @g @brombek
@gerald_leppert @ashwinvis @g @brombek thanks for the details.
Apart from the last point, I would say that these are mostly political and not really environmental reasons.
And that's fine, these are reasonable reasons to move out of nuclear fission. I just consider that, from a purely environmental perspective (as it was showcased as the "big victory" of the German environmentalists), closing functional nuclear reactors before coal plants was a mistake.
The decision to accelerate the outphasing of nuclear in Germany was taken in the aftermath of Fukhushima (in itself an extraordinary occurence). But how many people died because of Fukushima? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
See also environmentalist George Monbiot's provocative take at the time: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
What I am really worried about is not so much nuclear in itself... it is rather the collective difficulty of taking evidence-based decisions, even by environmentalist who insist science comes first.
If we want to get climate right, we need to be better than this with the many struggles that await us... some of them with counterintuitive answers.
@g @gerald_leppert @ashwinvis @brombek there is simple evidence: humans fear the unknown.
IMHO it would be wiser to both a) ensure very rigid security measures when maintaining nuclear power plants (i.e. security first, not profit) and b) invest in nuclear research – a lot has been done already and looks promising – and stop subsidizing fossil.
@brombek
The double transition away from nuclear energy (exit end of 2022) and fossil fuels (exit coal power plants 2038) in Germany is quite challenging. Both pullouts make sense wrt environmental and climate protection.
@g