kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@loweel @guenther

> prototype

Seriously? 7 GW?

@loweel @guenther

All of the 7 GW reactors they are shutting down now were generation 3+ so perfectly safe for continued usage.

@loweel @guenther

> The big mistake I see in all sides, is thinking like "one source for all"

I don't know anyone in the pro-nuclear circles who would push for 100% nuclear. The idea is to have as much wind and solar as practically possible in each country *and* smart grid *and* nuclear for baseload (instead of gas/coal) *and* replace nuclear fission with fusion when it becomes feasible.

@loweel @guenther

> this is an issue you can solve using another kind of power generation

I don't. This is what Greenpeace and German government is saying.

I'm saying they are stupid and anti-scientific by shutting down their nuclear reactors and replacing them with gas and coal when we need to decarbonize. And also for bullying other countries to get rid of zero-emission nuclear energy and buy the Nord Stream gas from Germany.

You just gave me yet another good argument about the grid.

@loweel @guenther

> also carbon and gas gives radioactive pollution

You are 100% right but the only reason why you need to make this disclaimer here is because of Greenpeace propaganda that pictured radioactivity as something scary and unnatural.

Solar panels, wind turbine magnets, coal, oil and gas, uranium mining - all result in release of small amounts of radioactive elements. This is engineering and engineering is dirty at times.

@loweel @guenther

> you risk a disaster which will pollute Germany for decades

You're again speaking about 50's reactors, none of which are in operation in Germany. Any 3rd and 4th generation nuclear power plant will shut down automatically, without human intervention and without power. If you need simple explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_XoqXNtRM

Russia still has some RMBK reactors and since 1986 there were *zero* nuclear incidents. Chernonbyl wouldn't happen if operators did not force it.

@loweel @guenther

> on powerpoint everything works. Reality is different. And this was my point

And my point was that you presented this as if nuclear power plants were somehow different in this behaviour from coal, gas or wind.

@loweel @guenther

> Germany can only keep gas and carbon for industry

But you are certainly aware of the fact that they are building new coal and gas power plants right now as we speak, and their whole Energiewende is - today, in practical terms - by replacing 70 TWh of *existing* nuclear plants by gas?

> appear "100% okostrom"

This is precisely my point! They are claiming their Energiewende is "green"... and increasing their fossil gas imports at the same time!

@loweel @guenther

> people is against nuclear power because of soil consumption

People are against wind and solar power because of land use, and their argument are rational.

Some people are against nuclear because of anti-scientific propaganda from Greenpeace whose arguments are not rational and make climate change worse.

Right now Greenpeace and EU Greens are the biggest friend of fossil industry.

@loweel @guenther

> On powerpoint everything works.

This is is what you said in the first place:

> nuclear plant (...) cannot scale on demand

Your statement was false. Nuclear power plant *can* scale output.

What you are talking about *now* is the grid scaling, which applies equally to wind, solar, nuclear, gas or coal power plants.

@loweel @guenther

> I smell propaganda , being honest

And you're right. There's plenty of propaganda out there. Just one example - European Greens spreading panic about "forest fires spreading radioactivity" when IAEA and a dozen of other scientific agencies monitoring Chernobyl confirm there's no increase in radioactivity. This is certainly propaganda, you're right in that.

@loweel @guenther

> And of course, you decide who

I'm an IT guy and don't decide on anything energy-related.I have just the same right to speak about it as you. And when I see Greenpeace spreading information that is simply false from scientific and engineering point of view, I'm speaking about it. So can you. Prove me wrong.

@loweel @guenther

> people is against nuclear

Some people in some countries are against nuclear power as result of hype and FUD spread by anti-nuclear activists who created a completely false and black-and-white picture of radioactivity as being something unnatural and harmful.

As result of this anti-scientific fanaticism some countries - like Austria or Germany - are replacing their zero-emission nuclear power plants with high-emission fossil gas and coal plants.

@loweel @guenther

> nuclear plants better than dams

A dam occupies tens of square kilometers of land. A nuclear power plant occupies 0.1 km2.

> it cannot scale on demand

You're talking about 70's power plants. Modern nuclear power plants can scale their output in 20 minutes. Modern gas plants for comparison - 10 minutes.

> people protesting against nuclear power plants

People protest against nuclear power plants out of ignorance while protests against dams and wind farms are rational.

@loweel @guenther

Pumped storage is well known and used in all countries that have some kind of mountains, including Germany where it can cover for around... 5% of the capacity. Perspectives for increase are dim as not many residents are willing to move to allow whole valleys to be flooded for new reservoirs :)

@guenther

Just to give you an idea: 400 MW wind plant occupies ~70 km2.

To replace the current 7 GW from nuclear you'd need 17 such wind farms... except wind works at 30% on average due to intermittency, so you need 3x that which would require 3675 km2 so roughly area of 61x61 km2 of nothing but wind farms.

And then you would need some kind of storage (not yet existent).

@guenther

And that's pretty much it - you can't build any more wind farms in Germany because they occupy vast amounts of land, people are protesting and they are intermittent. The next decade will be about replacing the baseload sources, which is now coal, with fossil gas.

New coal plant Datteln 4 test runs disrupt German power prices

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/controversial-new-coal-plant-datteln-4-disrupts-germanys-green-power-sector

By the way, by 2022 Germany plans to kill 70 TWh zero-emissions supply from nuclear power. Guess what will replace it?

@hushroom @feld

Farming subsidies etc are the reality in high-income countries like UE or USA. But UE doesn't really *need* GMO because it can produce huge amounts of cheap food already.

GMO is needed in the first place by low-income countries in Africa and Asia, which still experience famines or vitamin deficits in 21st century! And here you have Greenpeace "heroically" destroying Golden Rice or Bt brinjal crops for the sake of... "purity" and fanatics like Vandana Shiva.

@hushroom @feld

So you're absolutely right that we should be talking in terms of cost-benefit with all the parameters you mentioned (biodiversity, human welfare, economy) but you know what will be the first to protest against that? Greenpeace.

Because this means we would need to bring back to the table the topics they barely managed to remove from the public discussion as "filthy" - GMO and nuclear power. Which they don't like because they started believing their own propaganda.