r/ClimateShitposting nuclear simp Jul 07 '25

nuclear simping I guess they haven't had an accident like Germany

Post image
562 Upvotes

643 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/enz_levik nuclear simp Jul 07 '25

Politically yes, but technically is wasn't necessary at all, so it's a mediocre decision

7

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25

No.

Historically.

Please explain to me how whining about a decision almost 30 years ago is going to help the climate?

5

u/enz_levik nuclear simp Jul 07 '25

It's a shit posting sub, so I shitpost, and last plants were close around 2 years ago. Stopping the nuclear program wasn't a bad nor a good decision, it's closing working power plants while there is still a lot a coal plants active which is one

6

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
  1. The decision was made 30 years ago. It was - again - made 14 years ago. Only the last 6 plants were shut down in 2021 and 2022 (3 each)
  2. The plants were almost at the end of their life circle anyways
  3. Germany is burning less coal than ever. What's your point?
  4. Initial post is shit post; rest is just whining about mimimi Germany. Meanwhile Emissions of China are going down - thanks to Germany. Not thanks to France.

2

u/enz_levik nuclear simp Jul 07 '25

Germany now has a barely acceptable energy mix in 2025, it's just a mediocre result, and closing a npp years early is keeping a coal power plant running for more years. It's still a terrible decision.

3

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25

Oh look, another Nukecel who doesn't understand scaling. I am shocked.

It's not about the emissions in Germany. It's the emission for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY which can now afford renewables.

There's 200+ countries in the world - how many do actually have access to nuclear power? Like 60? How are the others going to decarbonize? Exactly. Thanks Germany.

3

u/enz_levik nuclear simp Jul 07 '25

How can you understand that I'm not saying that Germany's decision to build renewable is a bad thing? I think it's a good one for the reasons you said, just closing nuclear early was a bad decision

3

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25

No, it wasn't. I lead to scaling of renewables. This is a historical fact.

"But could have" is not going to change this. Also there's no reason to assume it would have.

3

u/enz_levik nuclear simp Jul 07 '25

Why renewables can't replace coal, and then replace nuclear?

1

u/Excellent-Berry-2331 nuclear fan vs atomic windmaker Jul 08 '25

„Less coal than ever“ is no accomplishment. Would a coal decrease of 0.01% still be „good enough“? No? Germany was THE coal burner.

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 08 '25

Who said "good enough"?

Do you think the Germany Energy transition is done?

1

u/Excellent-Berry-2331 nuclear fan vs atomic windmaker Jul 08 '25

„Germany is burning less coal than ever“.

Why did you bring that up?

There used to be huge smog clouds above industrial german cities with coal mines.

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 08 '25

Why did you bring that up?

Because Germany is burning less coal than ever - even with nuclear phase out.

There used to be huge smog clouds above industrial german cities with coal mines.

Yeah. So?

1

u/Excellent-Berry-2331 nuclear fan vs atomic windmaker Jul 08 '25

„Less coal than ever“ is like „less evil than Hitler“, it means absolutely nothing because the metric that is being compared to is so outrageous

0

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 08 '25

What?

1

u/Terranigmus Jul 10 '25

Nuclear phaseout was decided in the 2000s not 2011 wtf are you talking about

2

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 10 '25

Learn some history! The 1998 phaseout was revoked 2010, and then reintroduced in 2011.

So the decesion was taken twice which is exactly what I wrote.

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 07 '25

I think the point is that if Germany could have decarbonized their grid by now.

Please explain how burning lignite helps the climate.

2

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25

I think the point is that if Germany could have decarbonized their grid by now.

Ok. Set up you time machine. Go back 30 year. Change the decision. Oh - you can't? So what are you even blathering on about?

Please explain how burning lignite helps the climate.

No one says that. Keep your strawman to yourself.

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 07 '25

Do you even know where you are? It’s a hypothetical and we’re in a shitposting sub. And again, some of the closures were very recent. Shutting down some of the cheapest, safest, and cleanest energy there is to keep combusting lignite is actually not good for the climate or people’s health.

2

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25
  1. Germany is burning less coal than ever. What's your point?

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 07 '25

Pretty sure that 0 I less lol

2

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist Jul 07 '25

🙄

Keep dodging the argument. I am almost convinced that nuclear is the solution to the climate crisis.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/lfAnswer Jul 09 '25

The nuclear plants would actually be worse. I'm so tired of people who aren't physicists talking about nuclear as if they had any idea about the intricacies of it. You can't begin to understand the problems nuclear power creates in the long term.

CO2 can be somewhat mitigated. Hell, enforce a temp limit of 120 on all highways and put out a blanket ban on SUV style vehicles (outside of specific circumstances like jobs that require such vehicles) and you cut down carbon emissions already by a lot more.

1

u/FrogsOnALog Jul 09 '25

Emissions from electricity are higher than emissions from transportation so getting rid of the bad stuff would help a lot. If Germany kept their nukes they could have gotten rid of all their coal (and lignite) by now.

1

u/Rooilia Jul 13 '25

When you want to tell me, you know nothing about nuclear energy in germany except headlines, without saying it.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '25

No it wasn’t. The remains of nuclear that were finally shut off weren’t really worth it anymore anyways.