Summary

Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, called Germany’s decision to fully phase out nuclear power “illogical,” noting it is the only country to have done so.

Despite the completed phase-out in 2023, there is renewed debate in Germany about reviving nuclear energy due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at COP29, Grossi described reconsidering nuclear as a “rational” choice, especially given global interest in nuclear for emissions reduction.

Germany’s phase-out, driven by environmental concerns and past nuclear disasters, has been criticized for increasing reliance on Russian gas and missing carbon reduction opportunities.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    24 hours ago

    It was a stupid idea no matter who conceived of or implemented it. Nuclear is the only viable clean baseload power generation option we have. Solar and wind can’t do it, coal and oil are filthy, battery storage is nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

    • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Theres also power production from water and also using biogas plants. Those are two technologies being perfectly capable of supplying a base power.

    • DerGottesknecht@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Baseload is an antiquated concept that doesn’t work with lots of renewables. Battery storage may be not completely feasible yet, but look at California to see that it has the potential to be ready faster than we can build new npps.

        “Baseload” is still needed. Renewables are great but they are simply not there yet. There is a world between “potential” and “available”.

        • DerGottesknecht@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Yeah, right now. But not in 10 years when the first npps could be ready. And you would also need storage for npps when there is a lot of wind or sun, cause you can’t shut down the npps all the time or thermal stresses will cause damages to the pipes. And renewables are here now, it’s the storage that needs to catch up.

                • DerGottesknecht@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Do you know how old they were? We would have to shut them down anyway because they started reaching end of life. There was no new project for decades already. It’s a complicated political situation and it’s fucking arrogant for you to come in, scream about “nUcLeAr Is BesT” without knowing the details. Even the energy companies didn’t want to keep the plants running at the end. So please let us try to do our Energiewende, we progressives in Germany have enough trouble with our stupid conservatives

                • killingspark@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  That doesn’t really matter if we are discussing how to move forward from where we are, does it?