With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?

Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I’m more depressed than when I posted this

  • thru_dangers_untold@lemmy.mlEnglish
    54·
    1 year ago

    Yes, countries like Germany are turning to coal as a direct result of nuclear-phobia.

    The US, with all its green initiatives and solar/wind incentives, is pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia. The US has been the top oil producer on whole the planet for the last 5-6 years. The problem is getting worse.

    • klisklas@feddit.de
      56·
      1 year ago

      Sorry, this is just false info. Germany is not turning to coal as a result of your called nuclear phobia.

      I will repeat my comment from another thread:

      If you are able to read German or use a translator I can recommend this interview where the expert explains everything and goes into the the details.

      Don’t repeat the stories of the far right and nuclear lobby. Nuclear will always be more expensive than renewables and nobody has solved the waste problem until today. France as a leading nuclear nation had severe problems to cool their plants during the summer due to, guess what, climate change. Building new nuclear power plants takes enormous amounts of money and 10-20years at least. Time that we don’t have at the moment.

        • luk3th3dud3@feddit.de
          9·
          1 year ago

          Germany has not build any new coal plants. At least not in the last five years.

          Edit: Why are people down voting a factual statement? Go ahead and provide better info if you got it.

            • luk3th3dud3@feddit.de
              6·
              1 year ago

              Hmm I think what you mean is that some coal plants have been put into active maintenance. IIRC this was rather a countermeasure in case of absence of gas supplies. They are not part of the regular energy market.

              Anyway, I think there is not only one way forward. Countries like France choose to use a big portion of nuclear, Germany does not. And every way has its own challenges. What is important is that energy supply should be independent of oppressor states and moving into a direction of carbon neutrality.

        • Kissaki@feddit.deDeutsch
          6·
          1 year ago

          And that’s more likely than enriched Uranium becoming unavailable or locally unobtainable?

          • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
            2·
            1 year ago

            If you haven’t noticed, the sun stops shining for several hours every day and how much the wind blows changes pseudo-randomly on a hourly basis. Are problems with uranium supply more common than that? Not to mention that uranium can be recycled.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        2·
        1 year ago

        There is no “nuclear lobby” stop making shit up. Nuclear isn’t profitable, that is why we don’t have it. If it’s not profitable, there will be no industry lobby pushing for it. The fact that it isn’t profitable shouldn’t matter. I care about the environment and if Capitalism can’t extract profit without destroying the environment (it can’t) then we need to stop evaluating infrastructure through a Capitalist lens.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      21·
      1 year ago

      As people pointed out in another thread, nuclear energy is NOT the future and also a really bad short term solution,so countries like Germany are going back to coal short term to make the transitions to renewables in the meantime.

      It’s not a great solution, but without Nordstream, there’s really not much else more sensible to do right now, just to make the transition.

        • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
          21·
          1 year ago
          • It takes 20 years to build
          • nobody knows how much nuclear fuel will cost in 20 years
          • you have to take out a big loan and make interest payments on it for maybe 30 years before you start making a profit
          • if you don’t have enough water for cooling because of climate change, the plant must shut down
          • if your neighbor decides to start a war against you, your nuclear plants become a liability, see Ukraine.

          I think smaller, decentralized renewable energy is cheaper in the short and long run and has a much lower risk in case of accidents, natural Desasters or attacks.

          • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            3·
            1 year ago

            SMR (small modular reactors) are looking like they could become the next hip thing in nuclear power tech.

            Basically a lot lower initial investment and offer a lot more flexibility.

            Linky link

            The link has a lot of info on them

            • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              1 year ago

              I really don’t see that as a good progression. We want to focus on renewables because that’s the most sustainable way to go. Why go back to nuclear again?

              That said if you are saying that’s where the industry is moving even though that’s probably not the best approach, fair enough. My opinion has zero effect on the industry.

          • DrQuint@lemm.ee
            13·
            1 year ago

            “BuT thE WaSTe diSPoSaL PrObLEm”

            Meanwhile coal:

            “Oh that thing that’s more radioactive than nuclear waste? Yeah, just toss it in the air. Who cares”

        • dotmatrix@lemmy.ftp.rip
          18·
          1 year ago

          A single new reactor takes decades to build and costs billions. Investing in solar, wind, the grid and storage instead will generate more energy, faster, and for less.

          • Kalash@feddit.ch
            3·
            1 year ago

            It’s not “instead of”.

            You’re supposed to run nuclear along side renewables. Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables. Either way, something has be running besides renewables.

            • schnokobaer@feddit.de
              6·
              1 year ago

              Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables.

              But that’s literally what you’re gonna have to do for 20+ years if you decide to go both ways and also build new nuclear plants. Put all your budget into renewables at once and you instantly cut down on the fossil fuel you’d otherwise burn while waiting for your reactor to go online, all while you’re saving money from the cheap energy yield which you can reinvest into more renewables or storage R&D to eventually overcome the requirement to run something alongside it.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          17·
          1 year ago

          It’s just nuclear phobia.

          It’s literally the second safest form of energy production we have only behind solar.

          It’s literally safer than wind power.

          Yeah there’s been a few disasters with older reactor designs or reactors that were put where they shouldn’t have been, but even with those it’s still incredibly safe.