←back to thread

Scientist exposes anti-wind groups as oil-funded, now they want to silence him

(electrek.co)
542 points xbmcuser | 5 comments | 27 Aug 25 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qwertox ◴[27 Aug 25 10:51 UTC] No.45037882[source]▶
A country can commit to 300 years of wind energy, temporarily harming a bit of nature.

Once a better solution has been found, the land can be freed for the nature to take over again.

We have no issues with stealing a couple of square miles of nature in order to pave it for our cities or to use it for farming.

Once you remove the wind turbines, the harm you've done to the nature was minimal: production of the turbines, used area and generated noise, minimal pollution of the area, the troubles of recycling them. That's mostly it.

You don't have this with oil, nor with current-age nuclear.

Also, we've already accepted the noise of cars, trucks, motorcycles and planes.

So I really don't get what they are protesting about, specially in Germany.

replies(8): >>45038007 #>>45038086 #>>45038273 #>>45038440 #>>45038849 #>>45039121 #>>45039338 #>>45039458 #
CalRobert ◴[27 Aug 25 11:20 UTC] No.45038086[source]▶
Germany is famously abhorrent of change. "We've always done it this way" isn't used ironically.
replies(3): >>45038225 #>>45038820 #>>45044981 #
AlexandrB ◴[27 Aug 25 11:35 UTC] No.45038225[source]▶
Unless the change is shutting down perfectly good nuclear power plants[1]. The energy transition in Germany has been handled horribly for reasons I can't understand.

[1] https://www.base.bund.de/en/nuclear-safety/nuclear-phase-out...

replies(5): >>45038399 #>>45038642 #>>45038741 #>>45038767 #>>45047337 #
CalRobert ◴[27 Aug 25 12:17 UTC] No.45038642[source]▶
They were scared after Fukushima, a nuclear disaster that if anything showed how resilient nukes can be compared to coal, which just gets away with killing thousands of people quietly. Perhaps they’re better at vibes than they are at maths.
replies(2): >>45038818 #>>45045478 #
1. MagnumOpus ◴[27 Aug 25 12:38 UTC] No.45038818[source]▶
The nuclear exit was started 10 years before that - mostly also because of vibes: the Green Party became junior coalition partner in the government for the first time, and the greens had a longstanding anti-nuclear stance from their roots in the 1970s anti-nuclear weapons movement… They pushed for the nuclear exit.

When the conservatives regained power, they vowed to cancel and stop the exit timeline, but then came Fukushima and an irrational media panic - and Merkel did what she does best.

replies(2): >>45038862 #>>45039013 #
2. pydry ◴[27 Aug 25 12:42 UTC] No.45038862[source]▶
Vibes, chernobyl and also the absurd cost of nuclear power.

Poland is building nuclear power now though, after decades of burning epic amounts of coal (~85% of their electricity output).

This is most likely coz it provides a route to creating a nuclear weapon in a hurry "just in case". It isnt cost effective for them for any other purpose.

replies(2): >>45039074 #>>45039728 #
3. jajko ◴[27 Aug 25 12:56 UTC] No.45039013[source]▶
> and Merkel did what she does best.

You mean f_ck up safety and security of whole Old continent for decades to come, for some ego polishing, personal weaknesses or similar noble reasons?

She still admits no failures nor missteps during her reign in many topics where she clearly failed badly, despite journalists asking very direct questions about this. I wonder when will German population realize how much long term damage she has done, if ever.

4. CalRobert ◴[27 Aug 25 13:01 UTC] No.45039074[source]▶
Well they saw what happened to a nuclear free Ukraine
5. ZeroGravitas ◴[27 Aug 25 13:55 UTC] No.45039728[source]▶
> Poland generated 54% of electricity from coal in 2024, down from 70% just 2 years ago

https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/poland/

They keep putting their nuclear switch on date backwards (2040 now I think?) but renewables have been taking big chunks out of the problem and will continue to do so.