this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
201 points (98.6% liked)
Climate
8632 readers
269 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Strangely solar, wind and hydro power are cheaper to build, maintain and cheaper to make electric energy available.
Additionally they don't create highly dangerous waste that needs to be kept safe for a veeeeeery long time and for which no working solution has been found.
What's mostly missing is for the ongoing change towards renawables is storage, but hey, the ascent of electric vehicles comes in handy for that.
Being still in favor of nuclear today is about as tone-deaf as being in favor of still using fossil energy.
Which Germany seems to be, seeing how you import loads and loads of coal and oil power from Poland, not to mention nuclear power from France and Sweden (among others).
I searched for info and there seems to be a clear trend according to https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix which fossil is going down, nuclear having gone to 0, total energy imports going down, renawables going up.
Do you say such a transformation can be done over night?
Looking at the USA in comparison I come to the conclusion that a lot of countries are on the right path.
Your electrical production went from >5 million TJ in 2000 to ~3 million TJ in 2024. You seem to be relying on everyone else producing at times with no wind and no sun. Like cold winter nights when everyone else needs their power too. 70-80 Euro cents per kWh was unheard of just 5 years ago. It's not even uncommon where I live now that you've removed what dependability your grid had.
https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/electricity shows a different picture regarding electrical production.
Where's your source?
Btw. you can stop addressing/blaming me; you have no idea where I reside.
My bad. I mixed up "energy" with "electricity", which is not the same thing. Was looking at the domestic energy production graph (second line graph on mobile at least) at https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix .
Edit: Your source states that Germany is importing 81% more electricity "now" (2024) than in the year 2000. Still "just" 5.8% net import, but seems (to me) as if my point still stands even if the numbers were the wrong ones.
Those systems cannot keep up with demand at present never mind the growing need. Nuclear is the best we have weather people want to admit it to themselves or not.
Nuclear is neither able to compete with cost of production per kWh nor with speed of construction of renawables, whether people want to admit to whomever or not.
Smrs are exploding in popularity for this very reason.
Because they don't have to factor in the cost of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is an error that's been made and still being made everywhere.
Costs are going up regardless of the methods of energy creation. The most important thing is meeting energy demand.
Unfortunately the same can be applied to any equipment that is used in the energy field. How long do solar panels last, how much does it cost to “recycle” them? Same for go wind turbines and anything else. They all have an end of life cost economically and environmentally.
The cost of installing solar has gone down fro quite a while (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices) and depending on your region you can harvest around 1 kWh annually per 1 Watt peak power.
With the price per Watt being a fraction (2024: $0.26) of a Dollar and the life span of solar modules being in the decades, it really is a no-brainer whether you want to install them or not.
While they degrade over the years, they still retain close to 90% of their original power after 20 years and above 80% after 30 years.
They're basically free from maintenance.
The inverters may not last that long, but even for quite big installations at home in the range of double-digit kilowatt peak with annual electric energy procution in the double-digit MWh range, they cost only a few hundred bucks.
The biggest part (by mass) of solar panels is glass, which you are aware can be recylced until the cows come home.
Another big part is aluminum. Recylcing wise the same as glass.
And if you really want to replace them after decades, the amount of material that can't be recycled is quite small and not hazardous. Put it in the landfill.
Wind turbines are in part different as the blades typically can't be recycled afaik. At least they're in the category of non-hazardous waste as well and just like solar panels wind turbines last a very long time plus the towsers and the generators can very well be recylced/reused.
Alas they require more maintenance than solar.
The bigger challenge than finding cheap and not dangerous sources of electric energy at the moment appears to be the storage.
With more and more electric vehicles being on the street and each of them with capable batteries this can be a part of the storage solution alongside of grid-storage.
I choose renewables over fossil and nuclear any time of the day.
And the winter nights with basically no light, freezing temps and no wind will stop coming, right? Is your argument that it's preferable to burn coal or oil?
Winter nights are often stormy: wind turbines do their job.
It would seem you and I have very different winters. At -20C, I've never seen more than a gentle breeze.
This comment is tone deaf.
We've invested a bunch in those sectores in the last decade and a half. Not in nuclear. Before then, they were also ridiculously expensive and everyone made the same argument you are making, but in favor of Fossil fuels because it was cheaper. It was shit then, it's shit now.
If you actually look at data instead of going off vibes nuclear is still the second safest energy source, nearly tied with solar. Wind is behind, and if you think nuclear is dangerous then what the fuck are you bringing up hydro for? By the most dangerous if those, if we go by actual data and not vibes.
And plenty of working solutions for waste have been found, but people just don't care to listen to them because they already made up their mind: airplanes are more dangerous than cars.
Riddle me this: where are the ultimate disposal places for nuclear waste and how much does it cost to operate them for the next tens of thousands of years - at least. Please do enlighten me about the (technically and economically) working solutions for nuclear waste. But I do agree that fossil is shit now and it was then.
And there's zero risk of radioactive contamination when using solar (or hydro or wind), statistics my ass.
Have you ever heard of the disaster at Chernobyl? And it was close more often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Calling the certainty of nuclear waste and the risk of contamination vibes is as ridiculous as it can get.
Btw. there's a difference between risks that affect people once and risks that affect people for centuries.
Even before we get to nuclear disposal places, there are reactors which can literally use the waste from other reactors, producing more energy and reducing the waste. And once it cannot be reused anymore, it can be safely stored underground, which you cannot do with the waste from fossil fuels. Do you have working solutions for carbon emissions? Because renewables still cannot keep up with the demand, and everyone will tell you need something other than them to jump start grids, base load, and for emergencies.
And yes, it's vibes. Factually, nuclear is safer than all renewables, except solar. This is a blatant mathematical and statistical fact. I can also link to plane crashes. Are you going to cry to me about how they are more dangerous than cars? And Chernobyl happened very early in nuclear energy production technology, we have improved a lot since, and even the most recent accidents were on plants that have existed for a while.
Where do you think the materials to build renewables come from? Mines. Did you know mines are radioactive, and release radioactive which is not contained? So newsflash: not just coal, but even iron mines release radioactivity due to trace amounts of radioactive material. This radioactivity is not contained. And given how there are people in there, and they are often close to civilization, they are even worse for people than nuclear waste disposal sites which are deep underground and where almost no one goes.
You are ignorant. Period, end of. I'm tired of hearing ignorant and anti-science people spreading missinfo while pretending to care about science and facts. Climate scientists have literally been advocating for nuclear as a green alternative.
In theory or in practice? If in practice, please name/link them.
Until you showed me the reactors that use nuclear waste from other reactors, I call it the bullshit that carbon capture is - greenwashing to continue with the harmful processes.
We need to avoid carbon emissions and nuclear waste. Period.
Do you know how you sound?
Link to the science or stfu.
I won't do your homework for you mate. If you really want you can look through my profile where I've posted links in the past. It never matters because you always either go silent or just deflect and bury your head in the sand.
Sure, go on claiming stuff while shifting the burden of "homework" on others instead of proving your claims as that sounds like a perfectly scientific approach, lol..
You may be able to fool others with your argument from authority ("science says..."), but please allow me once more to ask you for specific links to your claims.
If you can't/won't provide them I fear it's more like you are the one going silent or burying your head in the sand.
So what's it gonna be?
Stop performimg for an audience, there's no one else here mate. At this point, if you really cared you could have easily found the evidence for what I'm saying. Even in my profile, like I said.
You're a damn fool and I'm not wasting more time. Keep screaming to the void and performing for your audience, I'm ignoring you.
Well, I'm not screaming, but you're pretty much a void.
If you cared, you could've provided one name or link.
Yeah, I'm gonna ignore you too, because you have nothing to offer but ramblings.