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.

  • Zacpod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Never understood what kind of an idiot you have to be to choose coal over nuclear. Absolutely bonkers.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        You tried, but it didn’t work out as expected.

        Also, on a side note, with nuclear you could export energy to other countries so that they don’t need to rely on coal gas & oil so much.

        • Don_alForno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 minutes ago

          We tried and it did and does work. Renewables are going up, fossils are going down.. We are burning less coal than ever. Any claims to the point of “replaced nuclear with coal” are disinformation and lies.

          with nuclear you could export energy to other countries

          We are exporting energy to other countries.

          Nuclear is the most expensive form of power,. it’s unsafe and inflexible. It doesn’t make sense, it never did, and all those other kids jumping off the bridge don’t change that.

        • Landslide7648@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It actually worked better than expected. It’s simply a long process.

          Snd until we have a good, permanent solution where to store nuclear waste that won’t be an issue for hundreds of future generations, it’s simply irresponsible to air for nuclear instead of renewables

    • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This “replace with coal” bs is straight up misinformation.

    • ms.lane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Such an attitude afflicts Australia too. We could have close to unlimited free energy, but instead choose to build more Coal since ‘Nuclear Bad’ and ‘Nuclear too much money’ (despite the same people decrying the idea of ‘too much money’ being applied to anything else)

      • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Hmmmm, I don’t think nuclear makes much sense in Australia when we have an abundance of renewable resources available to us. Nuclear energy has never been known to be cheap and rapidly deployable. If we were going to go down the road of nuclear power we will have to start from the ground up given our utter lack of nuclear energy industry. This would take so much time and money. Why do that when we have sun baked deserts, are girt by sea and have every key mineral under the sun.