Rather than that, it’s a veiled NIMBY argument. They don’t care that nuclear, gas or coal power plants look uglier - they would if they would stand in their backyard.
They similarily don’t really care about the optics of wind turbines, but they are afraid of javing them in their backyard, which is much more likely than a power plant if you don’t live near a river
Let’s leave nuclear out of this, they look magnificent! In our area, the nuclear power plant is a photo point / trip destination. The surrounding nature is very healthy thanks to the strict regulations.
This thread has been the first time I’ve ever jeard this nuclear gas nonsense, even though I am German and my mother has been anti-nuclear her entire life.
But mostly for the reason of waste and knowing that people, government and companies alike, will cut corners and always find a way to create nuclear hazards.
Yeah, if you can find a public tier ii map, rural areas are full of bunkers of holding tanks filled with petroleum and produced water from injection wells. So it works more than fantasticaly on tge rural public, many of whom earn a small amount of income on a shared lease.
See nuclear is one point I can never really wrap my head around who pushes for this, because the only profiting parties are nuclear fuel producers (well the big one is Russia, so maybe?).
Nuclear doesn’t work well to stabilize the energy grid. It’s particularily bad in summer, when droughts drastically lower the level of the rivers (as seen in France).
Yes nuclear fuel os relatively sustainable, but factoring production cost of the plant and the mining and refinery and the picture looks worse (better than other plants, but not that much).
It’s however exorbantly more expensive and fosters a different dependance, one that cannot be substituted easily as there are few countries that have sufficient uranium, the EU for one has none.
Yeah that’s technically true. Practically however river water is used to cool the circulating coolant and to prevent the waterlife from dying due to heat, the power plant needs to be shut down when the river level becomes too low.
Why does the fediverse believe that everyone that does not celebrate nuclear power has no idea how it works?
And even if droughts wouldn’t have an effect, then nuclear power is still much much more expensive and only works when the government subsidizes the companies that run the plants. The conservatives try to promote nuclear power in Germany for some time now and yet all German power suppliers have said they wouldn’t even restart their nuclear program if the governement were to heavily subsidize them. And that is without having to find a place to build them and get the planning legally finished
Rather than that, it’s a veiled NIMBY argument. They don’t care that nuclear, gas or coal power plants look uglier - they would if they would stand in their backyard.
They similarily don’t really care about the optics of wind turbines, but they are afraid of javing them in their backyard, which is much more likely than a power plant if you don’t live near a river
Let’s leave nuclear out of this, they look magnificent! In our area, the nuclear power plant is a photo point / trip destination. The surrounding nature is very healthy thanks to the strict regulations.
deleted by creator
This thread has been the first time I’ve ever jeard this nuclear gas nonsense, even though I am German and my mother has been anti-nuclear her entire life. But mostly for the reason of waste and knowing that people, government and companies alike, will cut corners and always find a way to create nuclear hazards.
deleted by creator
Yeah, if you can find a public tier ii map, rural areas are full of bunkers of holding tanks filled with petroleum and produced water from injection wells. So it works more than fantasticaly on tge rural public, many of whom earn a small amount of income on a shared lease.
See nuclear is one point I can never really wrap my head around who pushes for this, because the only profiting parties are nuclear fuel producers (well the big one is Russia, so maybe?). Nuclear doesn’t work well to stabilize the energy grid. It’s particularily bad in summer, when droughts drastically lower the level of the rivers (as seen in France).
Yes nuclear fuel os relatively sustainable, but factoring production cost of the plant and the mining and refinery and the picture looks worse (better than other plants, but not that much).
It’s however exorbantly more expensive and fosters a different dependance, one that cannot be substituted easily as there are few countries that have sufficient uranium, the EU for one has none.
Nuclear power plants circulate their water they don’t just dump it into the river so droughts don’t have an effect on them.
Yeah that’s technically true. Practically however river water is used to cool the circulating coolant and to prevent the waterlife from dying due to heat, the power plant needs to be shut down when the river level becomes too low.
Why does the fediverse believe that everyone that does not celebrate nuclear power has no idea how it works?
And even if droughts wouldn’t have an effect, then nuclear power is still much much more expensive and only works when the government subsidizes the companies that run the plants. The conservatives try to promote nuclear power in Germany for some time now and yet all German power suppliers have said they wouldn’t even restart their nuclear program if the governement were to heavily subsidize them. And that is without having to find a place to build them and get the planning legally finished