←back to thread

542 points xbmcuser | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.45038489[source]
And yet, despite multiple attempts by those on the political right to slow it down, they've powered ahead with reducing coal and gas usage.

Some of those critics focus on nuclear (Like AfD: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/populist-afd-sand-gears...) and some of those pretend to be angry about the slowness of Germanys transition but it doesn't really add up to anyone who pays attention to the local facts. It's just a meme to get people angry at the left and/or environmentalists, while the right openly and continually sabotage progress.

replies(2): >>45038649 #>>45038863 #
philipallstar ◴[] No.45038863[source]
Opposition to nuclear is 90% a "left" wing problem. Blaming the boogeyman "right" is silly in general, as left-right is a thought-terminating scale, but really silly in this case where it actually is pretty clear-cut.

Greenpeace did great work on the peace front, but wrecked 50 years of carbon progress on the nuclear power front.

replies(1): >>45039892 #
1. triceratops ◴[] No.45039892[source]
> Opposition to nuclear is 90% a "left" wing problem. Blaming the boogeyman "right" is silly in general

The "left" (by your definition) also opposes fossil fuels but we're nowhere near eliminating those. Why haven't they succeeded?

Surely mere "opposition" isn't enough.