this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
309 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32297 readers
730 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you'd rather they instead got another round of fuel rods from the russians? Because afaik swapping out those fuel rods for american designs would not have worked without redesigns of the reactors (not feasible in the time available). Besides, the plants were scheduled to shut down for a while now, some of their safety certifications running out shortly after shutdown due to those plans. Renewing those certifications in time would have been a mammoth task better spent on more renewables.
There can be a discussion about the order of planned shutdowns here (coal before nuclear) but to argue the plants lifetime should have been emergency extended is pretty delusional. Such a thing was simply not possible given the constraints present.
The amount of astroturfing for the nuclear energy lobby is insane. Always the exact same talking points. Every. Single. Time. Anytime a post is made about a country switching to wind or solar energy, these nuclear bros bombard the thread saying the exact same shit. Must be a coincidence…
I don't work for anybody, and I don't know what list of talking points you think I'm repeating other than the specific assertion that Germany shouldn't have shut down its nuclear plants.
I could just as well accuse you of astroturfing for the coal power lobby.
But since you're accusing me of being a shill anyway: yes, nuclear power is clean and safe and our refusal to embrace it has cost us decades of progress in reducing carbon emissions + is continuing to do so now. The anti-nuclear lobby has a tremendous amount of blood on its hands and I'm not the least bit ashamed to be on the opposing side to them.
Astroturfing isn't just paid shills. It's also useful fools parroting the same talking points, which makes it appear to be a grassroots-led initiative. It's muddying the water, like framing the argument as renewables vs nukes instead of renewables vs oil/gas/coal as this article is talking about. Increasing solar and wind power is a good thing. Period. But every time there's a discussion about how a country is investing in wind and solar, you nuclear bros make it about nukes vs renewables. Fossil fuels have to go. I do not endorse or support the use of fossil fuels of any kind. But nuclear energy is not a real solution, and all you are doing is derailing the conversation, which was about increasing renewable energy, which again, IS OBJECTIVELY A GOOD THING. Building NPPs take way too long and are way too expensive to save us from catastrophic climate collapse. Climate collapse is already happening. Crying about NPPs being decommissioned 30 years ago literally helps no one. It is spilled milk. It is nothing but a distraction that will prevent or delay the transition away from fossil fuels TODAY.