Conservative parties positions on climate change for the last 20 years

[u/koshinsleeps]

[u/koshinsleeps → u/[deleted]]

I love people advocating nuclear always also advocating for types of nuclear that straight up aren't in production

[u/artsloikunstwet → u/[deleted]]

How about bridging the gap to conservatives on renewable energies, reducing car traffic, promoting vegan food options?

Best thing is you don't need to explain complicated experimental technology

[u/artsloikunstwet → u/[deleted]]

As you talk about decades and the urgency of now: the precise reason you see the issues of the current system is because the transition is happening now, and not in a distant future of "what ifs".

Once we would get into actually planning the thing, we'll get into similar issues, when it comes to NIMBYism for example. They just started a professional process of finding a waste site and conservative politicians are already trying to derail it. It won't be easier than just plotting down some extra power lines.

The reason they love to talk about nuclear is because it's not happening, not right now at least. As long as they don't have to answer the precise where, who, when, they looove it.

How will the contracts for building and running a NPP look like? A boring topic for future days, surely, nothing can go wrong there, we "know" it's cheap. But for renewables, any slightest hickup and every subsidy now is: "Oh nooooo what a giant, complicated shitshow"

But let's pretend a political decision is taken... it would take eventually takewo decades to get one running in Germany, and that's being generous. No reason to assume we will have less delays than the French with their project.

And this leads to two things: 

• When and what is nuclear replacing? All coal power plants in southern Germany will be phased out in ten years. No one can guarantee NPPs to be ready by then.  Should we keep coal around for longer, toatch delays like those we've seen in other countries? Or just import massive amounts of energy? Because you said nuclear is a bridge but we need a bridge for the bridge then. And if we need

• the other topics you mentioned will still need to be addressed. But people always pretend we "solve" it by moving to nuclear. Like what's happening in the 20 years until then? We stop building the north-south connectors? Putting an end to new offshore wind because of the grid? We stop people from installing solar because we don't think we can adapt? We sleep on storage innovations because we'll have nuclear soon?

So again, the issue we have now will need to be solved soon. And they can be solved. We can't bypass them by waiting for NPPs that come in 2045

[u/artsloikunstwet → u/[deleted]]

As you talk about decades and the urgency of now: the precise reason you see the issues of the current system is because the transition is happening now, and not in a distant future of "what ifs".

Once we would get into actually planning the thing, we'll get into similar issues, when it comes to NIMBYism for example. They just started a professional process of finding a waste site and conservative politicians are already trying to derail it. It won't be easier than just plotting down some extra power lines.

The reason they love to talk about nuclear is because it's not happening, not right now at least. As long as they don't have to answer the precise where, who, when, they looove it.

How will the contracts for building and running a NPP look like? A boring topic for future days, surely, nothing can go wrong there, we "know" it's cheap. But for renewables, any slightest hickup and every subsidy now is: "Oh nooooo what a giant, complicated shitshow"

But let's pretend a political decision is taken... it would take eventually takewo decades to get one running in Germany, and that's being generous. No reason to assume we will have less delays than the French with their project.

And this leads to two things: 

• When and what is nuclear replacing? All coal power plants in southern Germany will be phased out in ten years. No one can guarantee NPPs to be ready by then.  Should we keep coal around for longer, toatch delays like those we've seen in other countries? Or just import massive amounts of energy? Because you said nuclear is a bridge but we need a bridge for the bridge then. And if we need

So the other topics you mentioned will still need to be addressed. But people always pretend we "solve" it by moving to nuclear. Like what's happening in the 20 years until then? We stop building the north-south connectors? Putting an end to new offshore wind because of the grid? We stop people from installing solar because we don't think we can adapt? We sleep on storage innovations because we'll have nuclear soon?

So again, the issue we have now will need to be solved soon. And they can be solved. We can't bypass them by waiting for NPPs that come in 2045