Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Politicians and the people who support them push for many self-damaging policies based purely on ideologies, just because they sound good (getting rid of nuclear, going green) without considering the direct consequences of these actions (how do we serve our energy needs until we become fully green?).

That's like selling both your kidney to buy a prosthetic robot arm and wonder why you're not feeling well despite the upgrade. Sadly you can't argue on the pros of nuclear as you'd get drowned out by the "But Chernobyl blew up" shouts.

Rich anti-nuclear countries like Austria call themselves green while supplementing their energy needs via imports from coal burning Czech Republic and nuclear powered Slovenia. Laughable. This loophole in the EU should be stopped. If you import dirty energy you should also be responsible for the equivalent CO2 emissions you imported and not be allowed to call yourself green when clearly you just outsource your pollution.



> without considering the direct consequences of these actions

And the best example of that in Germany is Hambacher Forst. Return to coal is a direct result of moving away from nuclear. Nuts.


It's not, really. You can actually see that both nuclear and coal have been replaced by wind and solar in Germany. The issue about Hambacher Forst is politics and political lobbies. The area is owned by RWE since the 1960s and the open pit mine next door exists for much longer than the decision to get out of nuclear. It's simply convenient to blame this on the "Atomaustieg" as part of a lobbying campaign.

It's also interesting that nobody was saying that the Atomaustieg was responsible for increased coal use in 2020. Because it's only last year that was an exceptional year, which saw a uptick in coal vs wind.


The area was purchased by RWE in 1978.


Coal is still the primary source of energy for Germany.

https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/long-series/germa...


???

Your link says that oil is (in 2017) the primary source of energy. Followed by gas. Then coal. Edit: When I ignoring wood.


Germany did not return to coal. That's simply not true. The coal under Hambacher Forest isn't even needed and it won't be used up either.


>Germany did not return to coal.

Germany's buying cheap energy from coal burning Poland so it might as well have.

Call it outsourcing of coal burning if that makes it easier to take in.


A net import of 250,000 MWh in the past month. That's not even 1% of Germany's electricity production. Germany produced 4x as much electricity from photovoltaics even though the sun wasn't shining.


And because it won't be used and is not needed, the mine will operate until 2038?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine

> Begun in 1978, the mine's operation area currently (as of end of 2017) has a size of 43,8 km2, with the total area designated for mining having a size of 85 km2.

So there's still a bit to dig.


> imports from coal burning Czech Republic and nuclear powered Slovenia.

I'm a Czech hence biased, but hey we've got two nuclear power plants! (and yes the Austrians hate them)

According to Our World in Data [0], Czech Republic is 15% nuclear while Slovenia is 18% nuclear. We both have different primary sources of power (Czechia coal at 37%, Slovenia oil at 39%). I take offense at your statement "Czechia coal Slovenia nuclear"!

If it weren't for Austria, we'd likely have more nuclear and less coal. We wouldn't have knoedel and schnitzel though, so perhaps it evens out.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/czech-republic?cou...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: