Title makes it sound like a new method of generating energy was discovered, but really the article is about using geothermal in a new location.
> The development of medium-deep (>400 m) and deep geothermal reservoirs (> 1,500 m) could be a partial solution to provide renewable heat to single buildings, residential or commercial neighbourhoods, or districts of the city of Aachen via the existing district heating network.
Ta-daa. That happens. They found some new geothermal source in Munich as well after I moved into the place I'm in now. It turned out it was very viable.
Nowadays the heat in my apartment is mainly geothermal (The district heating network in my neighborhood has been converted to geothermal energy over the past 10 years.)
I have always wondered about the origins of the anti nuclear opinion of Germans.
It has Cold War origins to be sure, but what kind?
I suspect American intelligence has been supporting the anti nuclear movement for some time, for non-proliferation reasons - and not just in Germany. I certainly would be, if I ran the State Department.
Some good answers below already. I think the anti nuclear movement already started before Chernobyl. I believe it was one of the founding ideologies of the green parties (the danger of high CO2 emissions was not yet front of mind for a lot of people back then). So the opposition to nuclear energy kind of laid the foundation for the modern (European) green parties. But these were all young people back then (in the 70s) and a they have now become the dominant generation in politics. So just like in any other country the 50+ years old are in charge and that cohort in Germany happens to have fond memories of opposing nuclear energy.
And just a little side note because I've looked it up recently: EU produces about the same amount of nuclear energy as the US - and that's despite Germany shutting down all reactors. So it's not like the US or any other region has a much higher usage.
The 1st reason is nuclear waste. Germany is more densely populated than the US so you can't store it far away from humans. The solution tried before was to just store it deep underground. Turns out that might even be worse than storing it on the surface as it turned out and it has been a total disaster (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine). There have been more cancer cases in this region compared to neighboring regions as well, which might be linked to it. It is now planed to retrieve the waste again and store it somewhere else. Where is currently not known afaik. The whole thing costs billions of Euros already and is going to cost even more and didn't even deliver on it's promises. So for that reason alone wanting to produce more nuclear waste when we can't even deal with what we already have is obviously unpopular.
The 2nd reason is cost. As shown above the storage of nuclear waste has been an expensive fail for Germany, but it doesn't end there. We don't have any nuclear reactors left, so we would need to either reactive existing ones (expensive as they haven't been maintained for continuance operations) or to build a new one. How well that works we can see in either Finland or the UK... both have huge cost overruns and aren't even on-time. I think we had enough of those projects (BER, Stuttgart21) that another one that would likely end up like this is nothing anyone wants. Building more renewables such as solar and wind together with energy storage and gas/hydrogen power plants as backup is just a lot cheaper as we don't need more base load power plants, but ones that are a lot more flexible and can be turned on/off quickly depending on solar/wind output. And any new gas power plant is planned to also work with hydrogen, which can be produced when we have too much solar/wind and then act as the storage medium. So basically a long term way to store energy that is more flexible than batteries (at least on this time and size scale).
In the past reasons were different, but those aren't really relevant now.
Once I had a discussion with a German that is a strong supporter of the green party and his argument against nuclear power was the nuclear waste and no proper was of disposing it and also building new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time.
Then I did a deep research and created a PDF and pointed out that there has been many advances of re-using spent-nuclear fuel and minimize the environmental impact since 1980s and also countries like China has been using a cleaver way of using a standardized model of building power plants to cut cost, etc. but he didn't want to accept it as if he was almost brainwashed.
> So we just have to build the first expensive 20 to get the experience and then we reap the rewards after 40 years when we need the knowledge again?
I think the knowledge doesn't has to start from zero. Germany can ask for foreign aid from China.
> If nuclear would be cheap in the western world I'd be all for it but we just can't do large projects in our ccurrent system.
I agree, given the fact that it took 15 years to build the BER airport and Stuttgart 21 is still on-going, i can totally imaging building a single new nuclear power plant in Germany would take 50 years minimum.
> Solar + wind + battery is much less of an headache.
I agree, it's a less headache, but at the same time you cannot support energy intensive industries like chemical, manufacturing etc. You would have to build battery farms which is not sustainable. That's why Germany is slowly on a path for de-industrialization
Gas/Hydrogen are Germany's answer to you last point.
You can store energy created by renewables this way easily and use it when needed. Right now we can't produce enough hydrogen though, so gas can be used in the meantime, but in the future the entire infrastructure, such as power plants, pipelines or port terminals can be switched to hydrogen: https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/EN/Areas/Energy/HydrogenCor... You could even produce the hydrogen needed cheaply in countries with better conditions for solar and then ship it the same way we currently do with gas. Hydrogen power plants also have the advantage to quickly change output volumes, which is needed when most energy is produced by solar/wind.
So they would use the excessive power generated by wind+solar into producing H2 from water and then transport it? Theoretically it can work, but as you mentioned, can they produce enough hydrogen to match the demand via wind+solar?
Nuclear fusion would absolutely be a game changer. But they it could take 5, 10 or even 50 more years to achieve that and by that time I don't know if German economy would be able to keep on pumping billions into research.
> So they would use the excessive power generated by wind+solar into producing H2 from water and then transport it? Theoretically it can work, but as you mentioned, can they produce enough hydrogen to match the demand via wind+solar?
I think it can work, especially as you can easily import it using existing gas infrastructure and pipelines as a lot of that infrastructure is build to be converted in the future or currently upgraded for it.
> Nuclear fusion would absolutely be a game changer. But they it could take 5, 10 or even 50 more years to achieve that and by that time I don't know if German economy would be able to keep on pumping billions into research.
Building a nuclear reactor would probably might as well take just as long and we need quicker changes — especially when it comes down shutting down our coal power plants.
I believe that the money a nuclear reactor would cost to build is better invested in renewables (together with gas/hydrogen) and nuclear fusion. Is this strategy the right move? Only time will tell, but I'm optimistic.
I think most nuclear folks would rather divert the "big coal, and nat gas" plant building budgets to "build nuclear."
I understand the motivations for solar/wind, but there are real limiters that aren't addressed yet. Nuclear is the only option that is carbon neutral and lacks those limiters making it appealing. If I need steady state gigawatt scale power in a specific location, Nuclear is the only green option.
> If I need steady state gigawatt scale power in a specific location, Nuclear is the only green option.
I don't believe that is true: one way to produce electricity is a thermal engine driving a generator, but for a thermal engine you need both a cold heat bath and a hot heat bath.
Those 2 heat baths could be externally delivered (a stream of ice, and a stream of steam, say) or one of the 2 heat baths could be chosen as the local environmental temperature heat bath.
Historically the local environmental temperature heat bath was selected for the role of the cold heat bath, and the hot heat bath was heated by say burning fuel (fossil or nuclear; and I am ignoring the chemical and mechanical energy terms of internal combustion engines).
If you could source a cold heat bath, one could select the local environments as the hot side heat bath instead.
Above the tropopause the atmosphere has become a lot more transparent for thermal infrared radiation, and thats why it is a lot colder up there, its in better thermal radiation contact with the CMB (the temperature of dark space), very close to the absolute zero point for temperature.
It is not a scientific challenge but a "mere" engineering one, to create a robust, all-weather aerostat where the "cable" transports mass (presumably, but necessarily a refrigerant) symmetrically up and down (in a loop) heating the upper layers of the atmosphere (puncturing the CO2 blanket), while cooling ground level environment. That large temperature difference persists day and night, winter and summer. So it is a form of green baseload energy generation, which helps cool the planet, and runs 24/7 reducing dependence on oil countries or places like Russia for nuclear fuel.
Depending on north/south lattitude, the height of the tropopause differs a bit.
You wouldn't want to risk such a contraption (some lightweight ~12km vertical zeppelin housing the up and down paths) falling on populated areas, but luckily 90% of the world population lives close to a coastline, so just anchor it further away from the cost than it is tall, if it falls over, at least it can't reach populated areas on land. Another upshot of coastal chimneys is that the sea is a very heavy thermal mass, so you won't run out of thermal energy that fast, the cold mass flow that comes down can be used to freeze water, desalinating it. During a transition period where conventional fossil / nuclear power plants still exist such ice or ice slurry could be pipelined to the "cold" thermal baths of such power plants, greatly improving the electric yield for the same amount of fossil / nuclear fuel.
There is just embarrassingly little research in this direction, to solve such an engineering challenge.
That's part of it, but if you lived through months of news about where milk is unsafe and how to wash your vegetables and how much iodine to take. You'd maybe think differently too.
All the "oh, but it's different now, it's really safe" implies that the scientist at the time of the Chernobyl disaster didn't give assurance that it's totally safe either.
I am in favor of nuclear power and think that closing the plants was a huge mistake, but it's not somehow fully irrational to opose nuclear power. Not everyone has the hubris of thinking they can evaluate the risks when being shown some data. Nor can they distinguish the difference between "the experts then said it's safe" and "the experts now say it's safe".
Sure, but meanwhile they've been using your lungs as a particulate filter for coal byproducts for decades, and these things will fuck you up even in the best case scenario.
The no brain solution is to electrify everything and switch legacy infrastructure to renewables, just like China does. Gas usage is down in the EU anyway.
Long-term, that's the smart and also necessary move. But it can't be done overnight, and the transition has its significant challenges. I hope they don't mess it up it and will address these problems rationally - but given how most EU leaders have acted over these past few years, I remain painfully unconvinced that they will.
I guess it is, but solar can only be part of the answer: You need a solid plan (and all the infrastructure that implementing this plan involves) for when the sun does not shine, because in the more northern parts of Europe especially, energy consumption is highest during seasons in which sunlight is (relatively) scarce.
Also, "the grid" cannot absorb any amount of solar energy - so if you choose to address (at least parts) of the above challenge with a photovoltaic build-out that results in massive excess capacity during summer, there needs to be a plan (and again, its implementation) to handle that.
Excess capacity (literally free power) is only a problem because we mandate that electricity generation can only be done as a business that has to earn profit margins.
Because of economics, this means it makes sense as a business to sell power that requires a purchased input commodity, and doesn't make as much sense as a business to build enough solar to sell power during darker months. This is absurd, backwards, and is hampering our ability to deploy clean and affordable power.
National Governments should be massively overbuilding solar and just handing out the resulting power. It's really difficult to mismanage a solar farm.
Maybe instead of a deregulated generation market, we should focus on a barely regulated power storage market.
Not to sound like an ass but that's your typical HNer hot take on a topic they don't know anything about (which is 99% of topics outside of tech).
I know that I don't know jack shit about the topic, but I can already tell you that if you do what you describe you'll quickly learn about why grids have frequencies, what generate these frequencies, and what happens when they drift.
China still uses a massive amount of coal, and has a lot of southern idle land. Germany has been doing what you say for the last 15 years, it didn't seem to work out so well.
No brain because there is lack of survival instincts in such phrase?
Russia openly declares willingness to destroy europe, your lifestyle, way of thinking etc. They claim they are better. Sure , sponsoring this country is no brainer lol.
Germany already financed biggest war in europe since WWII by flooding russia with oil money. Is that not enough?
Amount of money EU spent to tame the fire of war could easily cover building 20-30 nuclear plants across the europe to solve the heat/cooling problem once and forever.
The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars the First, Second, and Cold Wars has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united, they're the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. - This is a direct quote by George Friedman. This[1] is a good read to entertain the idea more.
>Russia openly declares willingness to destroy europe
There is not a scintilla of evidence for this.
They're trying to keep the same violent and aggressive American dominated military alliance that is currently and actively trying to destroy Iran far away from their most vulnerable border.
They also tried to pursue the diplomatic route multiple times before invading and after invading and were always rebuffed.
Why? Nuclear has extremely serious, but very rare accidents, while fracking has less serious (as in, fewer people affected) accidents more frequently. I would say if you even it out, they're comparable...
Please refrain from putting these 2 in the same bucket. Fracking does lots of localized and non-local pollution. Nuclear is contained and way safer for humans.
Cumulative radioactivity emitted by German coal as a result of the ban on nuclear is likely higher than the amount of radioactivity spread by the Fukushima disaster. We can also add lung issues and other pollution of the environment caused by soot.
Just 6.5% of German electricity was generated through coal last year.
By contrast Poland was ~90% for years and only just slipped below 50%.
If I had to guess why Poland never got any criticism for that while Germany was routinely pilloried by certain flavors of propaganda I would hypothesize that it was because Poland weren't humiliating the nuclear industry by swapping them with solar panels and wind turbines at 1/5th the price.
Title makes it sound like a new method of generating energy was discovered, but really the article is about using geothermal in a new location.
> The development of medium-deep (>400 m) and deep geothermal reservoirs (> 1,500 m) could be a partial solution to provide renewable heat to single buildings, residential or commercial neighbourhoods, or districts of the city of Aachen via the existing district heating network.
Ta-daa. That happens. They found some new geothermal source in Munich as well after I moved into the place I'm in now. It turned out it was very viable.
Nowadays the heat in my apartment is mainly geothermal (The district heating network in my neighborhood has been converted to geothermal energy over the past 10 years.)
They found some potential geothermal wells near where they were previously mining.
Yeah title is way off lol
I have always wondered about the origins of the anti nuclear opinion of Germans.
It has Cold War origins to be sure, but what kind?
I suspect American intelligence has been supporting the anti nuclear movement for some time, for non-proliferation reasons - and not just in Germany. I certainly would be, if I ran the State Department.
Some good answers below already. I think the anti nuclear movement already started before Chernobyl. I believe it was one of the founding ideologies of the green parties (the danger of high CO2 emissions was not yet front of mind for a lot of people back then). So the opposition to nuclear energy kind of laid the foundation for the modern (European) green parties. But these were all young people back then (in the 70s) and a they have now become the dominant generation in politics. So just like in any other country the 50+ years old are in charge and that cohort in Germany happens to have fond memories of opposing nuclear energy.
And just a little side note because I've looked it up recently: EU produces about the same amount of nuclear energy as the US - and that's despite Germany shutting down all reactors. So it's not like the US or any other region has a much higher usage.
> EU produces about the same amount of nuclear energy as the US - and that's despite Germany shutting down all reactors
Noting that France has one of the highest shares of nuclear in the world, offsetting some of Germany's shutdown.
It's mostly fear after Chernobyl, fueled by environmental groups and the Green party primarily.
Nowadays it is mostly two things.
The 1st reason is nuclear waste. Germany is more densely populated than the US so you can't store it far away from humans. The solution tried before was to just store it deep underground. Turns out that might even be worse than storing it on the surface as it turned out and it has been a total disaster (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine). There have been more cancer cases in this region compared to neighboring regions as well, which might be linked to it. It is now planed to retrieve the waste again and store it somewhere else. Where is currently not known afaik. The whole thing costs billions of Euros already and is going to cost even more and didn't even deliver on it's promises. So for that reason alone wanting to produce more nuclear waste when we can't even deal with what we already have is obviously unpopular.
The 2nd reason is cost. As shown above the storage of nuclear waste has been an expensive fail for Germany, but it doesn't end there. We don't have any nuclear reactors left, so we would need to either reactive existing ones (expensive as they haven't been maintained for continuance operations) or to build a new one. How well that works we can see in either Finland or the UK... both have huge cost overruns and aren't even on-time. I think we had enough of those projects (BER, Stuttgart21) that another one that would likely end up like this is nothing anyone wants. Building more renewables such as solar and wind together with energy storage and gas/hydrogen power plants as backup is just a lot cheaper as we don't need more base load power plants, but ones that are a lot more flexible and can be turned on/off quickly depending on solar/wind output. And any new gas power plant is planned to also work with hydrogen, which can be produced when we have too much solar/wind and then act as the storage medium. So basically a long term way to store energy that is more flexible than batteries (at least on this time and size scale).
In the past reasons were different, but those aren't really relevant now.
Another relevant note here is that Germany is heavily investing in nuclear fusion, which is probably a better use of funds. https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-fusion-germany-bets-billions-o...
Once I had a discussion with a German that is a strong supporter of the green party and his argument against nuclear power was the nuclear waste and no proper was of disposing it and also building new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time.
Then I did a deep research and created a PDF and pointed out that there has been many advances of re-using spent-nuclear fuel and minimize the environmental impact since 1980s and also countries like China has been using a cleaver way of using a standardized model of building power plants to cut cost, etc. but he didn't want to accept it as if he was almost brainwashed.
So we just have to build the first expensive 20 to get the experience and then we reap the rewards after 40 years when we need the knowledge again?
If nuclear would be cheap in the western world I'd be all for it but we just can't do large projects in our ccurrent system.
Solar + wind + battery is much less of an headache.
> So we just have to build the first expensive 20 to get the experience and then we reap the rewards after 40 years when we need the knowledge again?
I think the knowledge doesn't has to start from zero. Germany can ask for foreign aid from China.
> If nuclear would be cheap in the western world I'd be all for it but we just can't do large projects in our ccurrent system.
I agree, given the fact that it took 15 years to build the BER airport and Stuttgart 21 is still on-going, i can totally imaging building a single new nuclear power plant in Germany would take 50 years minimum.
> Solar + wind + battery is much less of an headache.
I agree, it's a less headache, but at the same time you cannot support energy intensive industries like chemical, manufacturing etc. You would have to build battery farms which is not sustainable. That's why Germany is slowly on a path for de-industrialization
Gas/Hydrogen are Germany's answer to you last point.
You can store energy created by renewables this way easily and use it when needed. Right now we can't produce enough hydrogen though, so gas can be used in the meantime, but in the future the entire infrastructure, such as power plants, pipelines or port terminals can be switched to hydrogen: https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/EN/Areas/Energy/HydrogenCor... You could even produce the hydrogen needed cheaply in countries with better conditions for solar and then ship it the same way we currently do with gas. Hydrogen power plants also have the advantage to quickly change output volumes, which is needed when most energy is produced by solar/wind.
Ideally German's investment into nuclear fusion pays off though as it would change the whole game. https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-fusion-germany-bets-billions-o...
So they would use the excessive power generated by wind+solar into producing H2 from water and then transport it? Theoretically it can work, but as you mentioned, can they produce enough hydrogen to match the demand via wind+solar?
Nuclear fusion would absolutely be a game changer. But they it could take 5, 10 or even 50 more years to achieve that and by that time I don't know if German economy would be able to keep on pumping billions into research.
> So they would use the excessive power generated by wind+solar into producing H2 from water and then transport it? Theoretically it can work, but as you mentioned, can they produce enough hydrogen to match the demand via wind+solar?
I think it can work, especially as you can easily import it using existing gas infrastructure and pipelines as a lot of that infrastructure is build to be converted in the future or currently upgraded for it.
> Nuclear fusion would absolutely be a game changer. But they it could take 5, 10 or even 50 more years to achieve that and by that time I don't know if German economy would be able to keep on pumping billions into research.
Building a nuclear reactor would probably might as well take just as long and we need quicker changes — especially when it comes down shutting down our coal power plants.
I believe that the money a nuclear reactor would cost to build is better invested in renewables (together with gas/hydrogen) and nuclear fusion. Is this strategy the right move? Only time will tell, but I'm optimistic.
I think most nuclear folks would rather divert the "big coal, and nat gas" plant building budgets to "build nuclear."
I understand the motivations for solar/wind, but there are real limiters that aren't addressed yet. Nuclear is the only option that is carbon neutral and lacks those limiters making it appealing. If I need steady state gigawatt scale power in a specific location, Nuclear is the only green option.
> If I need steady state gigawatt scale power in a specific location, Nuclear is the only green option.
I don't believe that is true: one way to produce electricity is a thermal engine driving a generator, but for a thermal engine you need both a cold heat bath and a hot heat bath.
Those 2 heat baths could be externally delivered (a stream of ice, and a stream of steam, say) or one of the 2 heat baths could be chosen as the local environmental temperature heat bath.
Historically the local environmental temperature heat bath was selected for the role of the cold heat bath, and the hot heat bath was heated by say burning fuel (fossil or nuclear; and I am ignoring the chemical and mechanical energy terms of internal combustion engines).
If you could source a cold heat bath, one could select the local environments as the hot side heat bath instead.
Above the tropopause the atmosphere has become a lot more transparent for thermal infrared radiation, and thats why it is a lot colder up there, its in better thermal radiation contact with the CMB (the temperature of dark space), very close to the absolute zero point for temperature.
It is not a scientific challenge but a "mere" engineering one, to create a robust, all-weather aerostat where the "cable" transports mass (presumably, but necessarily a refrigerant) symmetrically up and down (in a loop) heating the upper layers of the atmosphere (puncturing the CO2 blanket), while cooling ground level environment. That large temperature difference persists day and night, winter and summer. So it is a form of green baseload energy generation, which helps cool the planet, and runs 24/7 reducing dependence on oil countries or places like Russia for nuclear fuel.
Depending on north/south lattitude, the height of the tropopause differs a bit.
You wouldn't want to risk such a contraption (some lightweight ~12km vertical zeppelin housing the up and down paths) falling on populated areas, but luckily 90% of the world population lives close to a coastline, so just anchor it further away from the cost than it is tall, if it falls over, at least it can't reach populated areas on land. Another upshot of coastal chimneys is that the sea is a very heavy thermal mass, so you won't run out of thermal energy that fast, the cold mass flow that comes down can be used to freeze water, desalinating it. During a transition period where conventional fossil / nuclear power plants still exist such ice or ice slurry could be pipelined to the "cold" thermal baths of such power plants, greatly improving the electric yield for the same amount of fossil / nuclear fuel.
There is just embarrassingly little research in this direction, to solve such an engineering challenge.
[dead]
I'm sure Russians had something to do with it too. Makes sure Germany will not develop nukes and they'll keep buying oil and gas.
Just follow the gas pipelines...
That's part of it, but if you lived through months of news about where milk is unsafe and how to wash your vegetables and how much iodine to take. You'd maybe think differently too.
All the "oh, but it's different now, it's really safe" implies that the scientist at the time of the Chernobyl disaster didn't give assurance that it's totally safe either.
I am in favor of nuclear power and think that closing the plants was a huge mistake, but it's not somehow fully irrational to opose nuclear power. Not everyone has the hubris of thinking they can evaluate the risks when being shown some data. Nor can they distinguish the difference between "the experts then said it's safe" and "the experts now say it's safe".
Sure, but meanwhile they've been using your lungs as a particulate filter for coal byproducts for decades, and these things will fuck you up even in the best case scenario.
Coal plants also produce radioactive material btw: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Fossil_f...
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#History
Geothermal is great, but it's not new. Is this just a misleading headline?
Opening survival north stream single pipe for Russian gas is no brain solution. Europe break records importing relabeled Russian gas last month anyway
The no brain solution is to electrify everything and switch legacy infrastructure to renewables, just like China does. Gas usage is down in the EU anyway.
Long-term, that's the smart and also necessary move. But it can't be done overnight, and the transition has its significant challenges. I hope they don't mess it up it and will address these problems rationally - but given how most EU leaders have acted over these past few years, I remain painfully unconvinced that they will.
Isn't solar the fastest energy source to spin up? Just take them out of the crate, put them on racks, tie them to the grid.
I guess it is, but solar can only be part of the answer: You need a solid plan (and all the infrastructure that implementing this plan involves) for when the sun does not shine, because in the more northern parts of Europe especially, energy consumption is highest during seasons in which sunlight is (relatively) scarce.
Also, "the grid" cannot absorb any amount of solar energy - so if you choose to address (at least parts) of the above challenge with a photovoltaic build-out that results in massive excess capacity during summer, there needs to be a plan (and again, its implementation) to handle that.
Excess capacity (literally free power) is only a problem because we mandate that electricity generation can only be done as a business that has to earn profit margins.
Because of economics, this means it makes sense as a business to sell power that requires a purchased input commodity, and doesn't make as much sense as a business to build enough solar to sell power during darker months. This is absurd, backwards, and is hampering our ability to deploy clean and affordable power.
National Governments should be massively overbuilding solar and just handing out the resulting power. It's really difficult to mismanage a solar farm.
Maybe instead of a deregulated generation market, we should focus on a barely regulated power storage market.
Not to sound like an ass but that's your typical HNer hot take on a topic they don't know anything about (which is 99% of topics outside of tech).
I know that I don't know jack shit about the topic, but I can already tell you that if you do what you describe you'll quickly learn about why grids have frequencies, what generate these frequencies, and what happens when they drift.
China still uses a massive amount of coal, and has a lot of southern idle land. Germany has been doing what you say for the last 15 years, it didn't seem to work out so well.
China's really big. Australia is advancing faster per capita due to having less capita. Can we be Australia?
No brain because there is lack of survival instincts in such phrase?
Russia openly declares willingness to destroy europe, your lifestyle, way of thinking etc. They claim they are better. Sure , sponsoring this country is no brainer lol.
Germany already financed biggest war in europe since WWII by flooding russia with oil money. Is that not enough?
Amount of money EU spent to tame the fire of war could easily cover building 20-30 nuclear plants across the europe to solve the heat/cooling problem once and forever.
The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars the First, Second, and Cold Wars has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united, they're the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. - This is a direct quote by George Friedman. This[1] is a good read to entertain the idea more.
[1] https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-crisis-in-ukraine-is-not-ab...
>Russia openly declares willingness to destroy europe
There is not a scintilla of evidence for this.
They're trying to keep the same violent and aggressive American dominated military alliance that is currently and actively trying to destroy Iran far away from their most vulnerable border.
They also tried to pursue the diplomatic route multiple times before invading and after invading and were always rebuffed.
no brain in the truest sense of it.
Hopefully Germany doesn't ban geothermal like they did with nuclear and fracking
Putting nuclear and fracking on the same level is wild.
Putting nuclear and fracking next to each other is also wild. Geographically.
Combining them is even more "fun", see also:
"Nuclear Fracking: Repeatedly Nuking Yourself for Commercial Reasons" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsu0lHkOIFg
Haha that's a good one, shaky foundation.
Why? Nuclear has extremely serious, but very rare accidents, while fracking has less serious (as in, fewer people affected) accidents more frequently. I would say if you even it out, they're comparable...
Please refrain from putting these 2 in the same bucket. Fracking does lots of localized and non-local pollution. Nuclear is contained and way safer for humans.
> Nuclear is contained and way safer for humans.
One could argue it is nominally safe.
> Nuclear is contained
Except when it de-contains itself.
Fracking is not like nuclear
But they were cancelled for similar reasons based on fears fueled by Russian propaganda.
So the Fukushima disaster and US polluted ground water are Russian propaganda for you?
Cumulative radioactivity emitted by German coal as a result of the ban on nuclear is likely higher than the amount of radioactivity spread by the Fukushima disaster. We can also add lung issues and other pollution of the environment caused by soot.
Just 6.5% of German electricity was generated through coal last year.
By contrast Poland was ~90% for years and only just slipped below 50%.
If I had to guess why Poland never got any criticism for that while Germany was routinely pilloried by certain flavors of propaganda I would hypothesize that it was because Poland weren't humiliating the nuclear industry by swapping them with solar panels and wind turbines at 1/5th the price.
The inherrent dangers of nuclear energy stem from flawed actors admimistrating something which carries manageable and often avoidable risks.
Fracking as a process carries inherrent unavoidable risk.
> the Fukushima disaster
Germany doesn't experience magnitude 7+ earthquakes on the regular... or at all for that matter. It 100% is manufactured fears
That still doesn't make them comparable
technically speaking, geothermal is in a way also a form of nuclear energy.