Meanwhile in Germany:

-4 points

Cleverly not counting nuclear as fossil is a joke.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Ah, yes, “cleverly”. Almost as clever as not counting mud as food.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

How is nuclear fossil?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

Fossil fuels means it’s something we are digging up and have a limited amount of, as opposed to renewable energy. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fossilized lifeforms. Uranium and other radioactive metals are exactly like that, something we dig up and can run out of.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

Actually fossil means just that. You’re thinking sustainable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I see your point about distinguishing between fuel types. I typically take fossil fuels as meaning non-renewable, carbon-based fuels though. Wouldn’t uranium and other nuclear materials just be non-renewable fuels?

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Uranium dinosaurs!

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Damn all these German tears in the comments could be used for enough hydro electricity to actually make the German grid cleaner.

permalink
report
reply
15 points
*

That wouldn’t be long lived, though, because when implemented in the current German fashion, they won’t be using salt water resistant equipment for cost cutting reasons and neglect all maintenance to cut even more costs. The tear powered hydroelectric plants will be rusted through and seized up in no time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

No it wouldn’t. It would never be built because the FDP would block it and Söder would refuse to have it built in Bavaria and Merz would say something about immigrants using up all our German salt on the tax payers dime all day long and Sahra Wagenknecht would mention that we wouldn’t need it if we were all good friends with Putin and the SPD would do nothing anyway and the AfD would blame the green party for not reactivating 45 year old reactors instead of building it,…

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

…different organisational levels of the Greens would endorse an oppose it at the same time, because it’s climate friendly but its building requires trimming a hedge of brambles on the neighbouring plot. A local citizens’ initiative against it would form due to widespread concerns about the plant’s working fluid containing the dangerous chemicals Dihydrogen Monoxide and Sodium Chloride, this initiative would run for the next council elections and win in a landslide. Then everyone would sue each other, and after about 5 to 10 years of legal battle, construction would be approved under strict additional conditions. By then, the cost would have doubled and the plant as planned and approved would be technologically obsolete and important components out of production, so there would be no other choice than repeating the entire planning and approval process all over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Bitte, aufhören 😭

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Where is nuclear fossil free? Show me the unranium tree please.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Show me the rare earth tree for solar panels, or the carbon fiber tree for windmills.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

There is zero percent rare earth in solar panels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

You get that a “carbon fibre tree” is literally just a tree right?

(also, wind turbines tend to be made out of much cheaper glass fibre. Admittedly this does not grow on trees, but unless you’re willing to ban windows and home insulation too it doesn’t make that much sense to complain about it.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Rayon’s a different material, not carbon fibre.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

At least these material are theoretical recycleable while uranium is not (once an atom is split you don’t put it together again)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

The lobby green washed it, that’s how.

The term fossil free is just easier to accomplish, we should be using environment friendly, because that’s the goal.

The last time i checked, producing environmental dangerous trash for millenniums isn’t environment friendly.

Even in the best case it’s a bad solution, but now they are really really safe, not like before, trust me bro

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Even though it certainly isn’t renewable, Uranium is not a fossil fuel. That would imply it’s made with the remains of dead organisms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

It’s even worse than fossil fuel:

Carbondioxide has its natural circle, if we stop burning fossil fuels nature can remove carbondioxide by itself.

This does not work for uranium or plutonium, and the pathetic tries to get it into a circle have polluted e. g. Sellafield UK and other countrisides.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

While all power plants have a one time carbon cost to build and decommission, there is a continuous carbon cost to mining nuclear fuel. I think that’s what GP was hinting at.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Nuclear fuel lasts so long in modern reactors that it’s kinda a silly point though.

What you need to be looking at is lifetime carbon costs per kWh, that’s the only real meaningful comparison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I was mistaken as i thought fossil free == renewable, but the definition is actually different, which makes “fossil free” a useless goal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Do you know what the word “fossil” means?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Uranium is a radioactive element. Part of the periodic table. Not organic. It was made by exploding stars mainly if my memory serves me right

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

ie not renewable

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It’s not renewable but it is fossil free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

No, but still fossil free (which is how the original post described it).

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

I don’t know which word I like more steinkohle or braunkohle. Either way Germany can shove their energy policy right up their steinkohle.

permalink
report
reply
-6 points

But that doesn’t matter. The real issue is that people heat their homes with oil or gas. Luckily our great leaders are fighting the actual problems! /s

permalink
report
reply
11 points

It “doesn’t matter” ?! I mean electricity is still a pretty massive chunk of the energy used in day to day life. I would certainly not say it doesn’t matter.

Also, a lot of people heat their homes with electricity, and sometimes even with heat pumps.

And I say that as someone still convinced we will not win against climate change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

You missed their /s. I assume their entire comment is sarcastic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yes, God forbid that we as a society could move onward towards more recent technologies. Nah, let’s just keep using dead dinosaur soup to heat our homes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

I would not discount the utility of creating a culture of sustainability. If your entire populace engages in more environmentally friendly behavior, they are going to demand the same of their government and regulations on businesses. The Nordic countries didn’t accidentally become relatively environmentally friendly. There is pressure on all sides there.

People mocked Obama for saying to fill our car tires, but that’s what he was driving at. If we are more cognizant of our waste and inefficiencies, it creates a culture that is more environmentally friendly.

Also landfills ain’t gonna stop filling themselves!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I agree that creating a culture of sustainability is a good thing, but the example I gave does the exact opposite. It alienates people, especially the ones who now live in fear of going bankrupt when their heating breaks and they aren’t allowed to repair it anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Jesus fucking Christ, why can’t people listen or read anymore? You’re allowed to repair your stone age heating devices. They give you 13 fucking years until that’s not possible anymore. The government throws money at you to transition to technologies that will benefit you from day one. Germans are just fucking bad at using the internet and believe all the far right bullshit that is spread by CxU and AfD.

Edit: people will go broke once the CO2 tax kicks in in the coming few years. Im not shedding a single tear for all those idiots.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Over here we got government help to replace our gas heater for a heat pump.

Note: here is not in Germany.

But still.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The government paid 45% of my new heat pump, here in germany

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I got 45% of the costs back from our German government for throwing out my 30 year old oil heating unit and hooking up to the local “Fernwärme” that runs entirely on renewables. Feels good man. People just like to bitch and whine about change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

In Denmark we heat our homes with cooling water from power plants…

permalink
report
parent
reply

Europe

!europe@feddit.de

Create post

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 3.2K

    Posts

  • 34K

    Comments

Community moderators