If you believe wind turbines are happy magical devices that deliver free energy...
Just to be clear: I do believe wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are necessary and most countries still have potential to increase their share and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Just don't tell me 100% wind and power is possible.
@kravietz but that's the basic problem, science in #renewableEnergy is concerned about (although in discussions it's mostly limited to classic energy storage and not other solutions like #PowerToX or even intelligent consumption control, sociological approaches...). So it's not like people working on renewable energy are not thinking about.
Where we are today, especially in the EU, is a completely ridiculous situation where a country practically run by people calling themselves "Greens" has one objective - to shut down all low-carbon nuclear power plants as soon as possible - and at the same time it's building new fossil gas pipeline, coal and gas power plants, because their 40% wind & power simply cannot deliver.
@kravietz i agree, that having german NPPs shut down, while france is running old, dangerous NPPs does not make sense from a conceptual point of view. But unfortunately Europe is not at the point where we agree on a common plan of action. But i have to say i am way more worrysome about nuclear power, since my current stance at this topic is, that we do not have a way of safely storing nuclear waste long term and it can pose great dangers when being weaponized or spilled.
Of course, it's your right to be more worried about a very unlikely possibility of spill from one of ~450 high-safety NPP running worldwide, than about the very likely and massively negative impact of climate change.
@kravietz i don't talk about the spill in NPPs, I'm talking about the spill in storage sites, like it has happened in Gorleben, Majak and other places.
Mayak is primarily plutonium processing facility, unrelated to civilian nuclear program, so it's unfair to link these two. After Chernobyl Russia had pretty good history in terms of nuclear industry safety even though it runs over 200 reactors.
Regarding Gorleben and 2017 Mayal leaks these have been too inflated beyond imagination - I mean the doses released in both were very small and had no biologic impact.
My point here is that due to improvement in detection and widespread monitoring network we are now able to detect trace amounts of isotopes, and any such case hits the news immediately with people scared to death about some kind of fall-out.
In reality, majority of the ionising radiation we receive during our life is natural and nuclear industry, including all past atom bombs exploded, nuclear accidents etc contribute <1% to that.
So the problem *is* massively inflated.
@kravietz I'm worried about climate change. I just argue that there is not just one way of solving the problem and i do not prefer a way that, in my opinion, creates another problem we have to deal with afterwards.