← Back to context

Comment by gf000

5 months ago

Well, populism is no good reason to do something dumb. Maybe laymen should not directly have a say over experts in deeply technical discussions.

49 comments

gf000

Reply
RandomLensman  5 months ago

Yes, not supporting energy infrastructure construction better was a mistake.

Removing what would be nasty targets in a war perhaps in the current light not so much.

  • mpweiher  5 months ago

    No shutting down cheap, reliable, CO₂ free and already paid for energy infrastructure was.

    That's about as idiotic as you can get.

    And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed north-south links.

    • natmaka  5 months ago

      Germany could have decarbonized faster by maintaining its nuclear power, but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former East German regions, which have been devoid of nuclear power since 1995 (Soviet reactors were shut down due to their unsafety). Therefore, all active reactors were located in West Germany, and there is no adequate high-voltage line capable of transporting their output to the East.

      At its peak (in 1999), nuclear power produced only 31% of Germany's electricity, itself less than 25% of the energy consumed (even considering primary energy, it only provided 12.7%), and by 2011 (Fukushima...), it was producing less than 18% of the electricity.

      Moreover, in the East, coal-fired power plants have long produced high-pressure steam for district heating (industry and heating many premises), which a remote reactor cannot provide.

      To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason (after Fukushima...) or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".

      Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency since it would have replaced part of the huge coal industry, which is very difficult to get rid of.

      37 replies →