Politicians are accountable by voters and voters object to have nuclear waste stored near their homes. Even those who don't think it's a problem and believe the scientists who say "this will never be a problem" (and they don't exactly say that, do they?) know that their property values will suffer.

Putting coal as the alternative to nuclear power is not just a mistake, it's an entirely dishonest argument trying to fool people.

But coal is the current alternative to nuclear power. A day may come when solar and wind will be, but it is not this day.

That's just a big fat lie. Even in Germany, the country you malign so much, coal power generation did not increase in the last few years. Not even when transitioning from Russian natural gas.

You may need to delete your comment, will you? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fu... (note: in 2020 coal energy in Germany was 20.4% which the above article doesn't mention)

Yes, I'm slightly wrong on a three-month time period last year. The numbers I had were for complete years...

Still doesn't negate my point that coal is going to be phased out and that coal generation wasn't ramped up as nuclear power was ramped down. There is just no clear relation.

I grew up very close to a coal power plant. Guess what, that is many times more dangerous than storing nuclear waste. I don‘t think I have ever heard anyone say they would rather live close to a coal plant.

Why is it a mistake or dishonest? That is the reality: Germany already powered many coal plants back up to replace gas and nuclear. Now it will take even longer to get rid of coal.

Then learn to read a chart. You are either lying or getting your facts wrong. Less coal plants have been reopened than have been shut down before.

Yes, the plan was to get rid of coal sooner, the Ukraine war made that harder. Actually some more lignite coal got burned last year in order to compensate. But we're going to get rid of those coal plants a lot sooner than if we were to build a couple new nuclear power plants which would commit us to a few more decades of that technology and all the associated problems.

„Um die akute Gaskrise im vergangenen Sommer zu bekämpfen, sind insgesamt 14 Steinkohle-Kraftwerke und ein Mineralöl-Kraftwerk wieder reaktiviert oder entgegen ursprünglicher Pläne nicht stillgelegt worden. Das geht aus einer Übersicht der Bundesnetzagentur hervor. Alle betroffenen Kraftwerke sind nach wie vor am Markt“

https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/steinkohlek...

With 6 nuclear power plants that could be a lot less

Yes, doesn't negate my point. Coal is not the alternative to nuclear power and saying so is a big fat lie, the correlation is just not in the data.

People like you dishonestly want to fool people into believing each terawatt hour not generated by nuclear power is compensated by one terawatt hour generated from coal. Because it's lazy and convenient and some people are stupid enough to believe it.

You are dishonest here. It‘s without a question that we would need far less coal if we still had our remaining 6 nuclear power plants running. We could be pretty much out of coal by now if we would have phased out of coal before nuclear.

Now you are switching around the argument. Of course you could replace coal with nuclear power. But that wasn't what you are lying about. Your lie is that nuclear is getting replaced 1:1 with coal power. Not the same thing.

That was my argument from the very beginning, you are doing a lot of interpretation and talk about lies and dishonesty, which is frankly typical German Energiewende talk that led us into this disaster.

> I don‘t think I have ever heard anyone say they would rather live close to a coal plant.

Same. Yet there are always demonstrations against nuclear waste sites. Or windmils .. or geothermic.

Current estimate for a decision on where to put a German nuclear waste site is the year.. 2046. Or 2068. Does not include building it. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/suche-nach-ato...

Yeah that‘s because there is a policy not to build one until after exiting nuclear power. Finland did it within a few years. Germany has a very good geology for nuclear waste.

> Finland did it within a few years

Well 40 years :D But that includes building it.

> The site was selected after a long process, which started in 1983 with a screening of the whole Finnish territory. > The facility is expected to be operational in 2023.

I bet there where not many demonstrations in Finland.

It will take Germany 40 years just to find a site. And then the demonstrations start.

Because the Finns are pragmatic while the Germans are just idiotically idealistic and will protest against any change, even if it's for the greater good.

Also doesn't help that most recent German chancellors form Schroeder to Merkel were in bed with the Kremlin for whom nuclear was a threat to their gas business so spreading anti nuclear propaganda through the media to the gullible German public was a necessary move.

Do you have any more insightful nationalistic cliches to share?

Sorry to be blunt and snarky but check your energy bill. You pay twice per kwh what Finns pay while breathing in more coal fine-dust and therefore having a shorter lifespan. Nuff said.

Oh come on...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Datteln#/media/Datei...

Coal gave us such nice installations:

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

Pretty shiny, isn't it?

Finland is a small country with a small population. It is futile to compare small countries with large countries. Small countries are much more likely to get lucky in certain regards, for example with a selection of suitable storage sites nobody lives close to. Or with a political climate that is amenable to such things. Also nuclear power was seen as an advantage because Russia is right next door. Finland is just in a much different position than Germany.

We had a nuclear storage site picked out long ago. Then it turned out it wasn't suitable. That's at least as much bad luck as "lack of foresight" or anything else. Finland didn't have that problem. If their storage site turned out to be unsuitable after decades of preparation, maybe they wouldn't continue with nuclear power either.

Last: You accuse others of propaganda but use a phrase like "in bed with the Kremlin" and spout conspiracy theories. You don't understand German politics. Mistakes were made. Presuming malice is convenient and lazy.

> Because the Finns are pragmatic while the Germans are just idiotically idealistic and will protest against any change, even if it's for the greater good.

Exactly, which why nuclear is not the best option for Germany.

> In 2021 the remaining (!) 6 power plants produced more electricity than all installed solar capacity.

How does that matter? Solar is not the only source of renewable energy for Germany. 2021, Germany got 42% of its energy from renewable sources, 2022 it already grew to 46%, and 2023 it grows even more. And those numbers are only so "low" because of political reasons and stupid people.

For over a decade the conservative and corrupted sabotaged the progress of renewable energies in Germany. This changed, partly because the government shifted, but to a strong part also because of Russia becoming a problem that not even the corrupted could ignore anymore. The progress since last summer in Germany is incredible, and it won't stop.

It matters because within a year 20 years of solar power build-up were nullified in terms of low emission capacity

I'm not sure what you mean. Solar power has significant shorter emission amortization than 20 years. I think ATM we are at 2-3 years? And solar plants can usually run far longer than 20 years. And still, how does solar relate to nuclear, when solar is not the only solution for replacing nuclear?

This is not about amortization but about low-emission capacity

Then please explain a bit more than just throwing around some words.

Please reread my comments