←back to thread

542 points xbmcuser | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
qwertox ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ACCount37 ◴[] No.45038399[source]
Germany and piss poor energy policy - name a more iconic duo.

The way I understand it, Germany had a horrid mix of anti-nuclear eco-activists, local coal lobbyists and Gazprom's natural gas lobbyists. The politicians not included in any of the above were too toothless, and couldn't fight through this bullshit and secure good outcomes regardless.

replies(3): >>45038489 #>>45038726 #>>45045145 #
Qwertious ◴[] No.45038726[source]
The problem was "compromise" - essentially as part of forming government the Greens and the CDU (Angela Merkel's party) agreed to an energy policy where they would phase out nuclear and replace it with a fuckton of renewables. But the actual govt did only the former without the latter (despite the previous agreement and the Greens' protest of Where Are The Fucking Renewables), thus leaving only coal and gas.

Leaving nuclear in place would be good, going heavily into renewables would also be good, but doing neither would be idiotic, and somehow that's what they did.

replies(1): >>45038904 #
MagnumOpus ◴[] No.45038904[source]
This is very much wrong. The Greens were never in a coalition with CDU/Merkel. (Merkel was in coalitions with the SPD/Social Democrats and FDP/Liberals.)

Greens were in a coalition with the Social Democrats led by Chancellor Schroeder; Schroeder agreed to the Greens’ demands for nuclear exit and negotiated a board role at Gazprom for himself after his political career.

Merkel initially wanted to reverse or freeze the exit timeline but bowed to public opinion to continue it once the tsunami hit Japan.

replies(1): >>45039293 #
1. ACCount37 ◴[] No.45039293[source]
Yep, this is what I meant by "anti-nuclear eco-activists", "Gazprom oil lobbyists" and "toothless politicians" respectively.