Ooops

Doch geht sie. Aus den falschen Gründen eher zufällig die richtige Entscheidung treffen ist immer noch unsachlich.

But "in the end" isn't fast enough for my taste... or for the taste of people losing their homes or base of life to floods, draughts, forest fires and so on.

And it won't even get better but just worse even if we stopped co2 emission completely today. We would have need that feedback loop a decade ago. Instead the same lobbyists now sabotaging it got a lot of renewables killed the moment they were too cheap to compete.

If you draw a curve of deployed solar and wind power, the last decade is a hole that basically threw us back more than the missed time even.

And even if renewables take over for economicla reasons now, they will just change tactic and instead sabotage storage and infrastructure to keep fossil fuels relevant.

Germany had a very coal heavy power prodcution originally and massively build up renewables... and the lobbyists were already ahead... they blocked grid extensions to create pockets depending on coal no matter how much cheap green electricity is available. They blocked grid extensions to make diversification less effective. They -also for that reason- pushed antiwind sentiments in one part of the country and anti-solar in another. They made storage commercially unviable by massive double taxation (once as an end consumer while loading, then as a producer while unloading).

And they did all that basically without anyone taking much notice because they also -and much more visible- blocked wind and solar power in general (ffs... they killed a 100k people industry and sold it off to China just because solar was getting too cheap).

Yes, renewables are extremely cheap. So cheap in fact that people fight for their chance to build solar and wind in designated areas instead of wanting subsidies like for other power production. But if we don't take a very close and constant look, we will be surprised in a decade how all those renewables did not actually help reduce co2 much as the 10-year-infrastructure plans for storage and grid are suddenly about lagging 9 years behind. Just look at such basic projects like the north-south grid connection in Germany. The 10-year plan to build SüdLink is scheduled to be done in ~6 years now... after 12 years. 100% sponsored by conservative local politicians and conservative nimbys cosplaying as environmentalists.

What makes you think that person only thinks poorly of German low-information voters?

His comments right here in this comment chain I answered to?

"Voted in by German citizens."
"Awww, poor German people. Never learned to think for themselves. Just learned how to follow orders."

Call me biased but explicitly calling out Germans in two comments in a row is a good indicator for that he is talking about.

There's also a lot of propaganda paid by fossil fuel lobbyists (and some nuclear lobbyists still going for the perceived easy target of renewables, as rediculous as it is...) with the goal to disrupt the energy transition.

And the majority here actually believes they are anti-fossil fuels while they actually parrot their propaganda (for example the "Germany stopped nuclear power to burn more coal"-fairy tale you can read a hundred times by now here - only invented for the talking point of coal being needed, when Germany is actually at a historic low in use) and thus constantly running (objectively wrong) talking points against renewable power.

On one hand I love the obvious panic of fossil fuel lobbyists getting more desperate and rediculous in their massaging by the day. On the other hand, they already brain-washed a massive amount of people that I fear are really lost and will fight tooth and nails against a reasonable green transition to pursue their fantasies of "sane" nuclear build-up (that isn't sane because nobody is actually building enough capoacities to make sense mathematically), without that "non-working" storage (that nuclear power actually needs to be economically viable) and "expensive" renewables (same, same...).

Sure... the once-again-below-5%-party will get influential ministries. And the Greens totally did not manage to meet their climate goals in agricultur and industry, both huge causes for emmisions. Oh, wait. They by far surpassed them. Soemthing you cannot say about traffic (FDP) or construction (SPD).

But yeah, I know. Brain-damage doesn't allow you to not parrot the popular fairy tales of the German right wing media, we get dwoned in on adaily basis for nearly two years now, just once.

Let me guess... you also totally believe the popular fantasy of the Greens losing voters in droves (actual ~0-0,1% since the election) because that's the narratives spoon-fed to you with weeks of rediculous talk about the Green's reaching a new low constantly... while their coalition partners actually lost 33-40% of their respective voters since the election.

But they could easily do it (and get paid by fossil fuel lobbyists) because the discussion is completely twisted anyway. And most constructive discussion of the topic will be drowned in fairy tales about renewables not working, nuclear being our only savior and other bullshit.

Basically this whole thread is a perfect example. We discuss electricity production because that's the direction the nuclear social media cult is pushing every discussion into...

The actual report linked in this thread is for a German report of construction and traffic sectors not meeting their emission reduction goals... and I'm pretty sure neither coal nor nuclear is used to power cars nowadays. And the electrification bottle neck for transport is the production pace of electric cars, their still too high prize, limits on loading infra-structure etc., not actually energy per se.

But that's excactly not was it happening. Keeping the remaining reactors alive (they provided ~2,6% of the generated electricity btw...) just for the sake of keeping them would have slowed down renewables (as those old reactors are definitely not fit to adapt to fluctuations well) and would also have bound a lot of money then missing for renewables and infra-structure (why upgrade the grid to better renewable fluctuations when the reactors can't anyway).

So they actually start right now and massively so to build up renewables and the matching infra-structure. Unlike countries with alleged nuclear plans, that all still plan to start building soon™ and in most cases not even close to the actual required numbers for the projected demand in two decades+. Because completely decarbonising transport, industry and heating means a massive increase in electricity demand as we basically shift all primary energy demand over to electricity. Yes, in some cases electrity will be more efficient and will save some energy. But we are still talking about all primary energy, with electricity today often only making up 20-25% of the primary energy demand in most countries today.

PS: But yes, if you want to build nuclear. Start today. But do it on a scale that you will be actually able to cover the minimal required base load of your projected electricity demand in 2050+... Fun fact: No country actually does. They all just pretend and actually sit the problem out for someone else by loudly planning nuclear but not in amounts that make sense mathematically. France is basically the only country with a somewhat reasonable plan. When they scrap the "8 optional reactors" bullshit and build the bull set of 14. That's their required baseload. And they will need to keep their aging fleet functional until the majority of them are build. They will also not be trivial.

The usual fantasizing about nuclear and failing any actual plan, very popular right now. Because nuclear lobbyists pay well.

Or more precise: They want to build more nuclear power. But of course all their planned and their existing nuclear combined will not even be remotely enough to cover just the minimal required base load in a few decades. Because changing most of our primary energy demand (industry, heating, transport in varying shares) to electricity (that is often only making up 20%+ in a lot of countries) will massively increase the demand.

If you are not building (or planning to start the build-up very, very soon) enough nuclear capacity to cover 80% or more of today's electricity demand then you will not have the minimal base load required in 2-3 decades, because there will be an increase by at least a factor of 2,5 in demand.

But that's not something you tell people as nobody has a clue how to pay for building even more nuclear (where "even more" means the actual needed amount)...

(A few exceptions with massive hydro potential aside -as they have access to that cheaper base load- there is exactly one country with a plan that works mathematically: France. And even their government is lying to their people when they talk about 6 new reactors with another 8 optional. Because the full set of 14 is the required minimum they will need in 2050 and onward (their old ones are not in a state to run mcuh longer than that).

But hey. Even the most pro-nuclear country and the one with a domestic indutry actually doing a lot of the nuclear build up for other countries can't tell their population the trutz about costs and minimla requirements. If you want to know just onme thing about the state of nuclear, that this should be it.

Yes, it looks egoistic if you are this deluded as you are.

But we have real problems to solve and can't save every propaganda victim that refuses to accept reality because you run on the usual hateful narrative about Germany. Hey, I don't even blame you. Telling a lie about Germany any time you need to divert from some own issue is a well honored tradition in Europe (and thus wide-spread in media) and so I understand that you were trained to follow that pattern. It's sad (or funny... I still haven't decided...) none-the-less.

So you can cry about those imaginary egoistic Germans of yours all you want. The actual ones are massively building up renewables, are -contrary to your beloved lies- on a historic low in coal use. And this report is actually about the transport and construction sectors not matching their emission reduction goals (while sectors liker energy or industry -the actual sources of coal use- are easily fullfilling theirs... but that's not mentioned because -as I said before- energy and industry are not even remotely the topic of this report.)

A bookmark... one of these magnetic ones (although you need to careful; some of them are too thick and leave actual marks on the pages).

Was von Wagnerführung noch interessant ist und ein Problem darstellen könnte, wird morgen rein zufällig überführt, für den Abschuss der Maschine verantwortlich zu sein...

Wen interessiert Gil Ofarim noch. Er hat gelogen, um sich wichtig zu machen. Es gibt Aufnahmen. Wofür braucht es da noch eines enrsthaften Prozesses, vorallem irgendetwas öffentlich wirksames, das du hier als Schauprozess bezeichnest. Interessiert doch keine Sau...

Schauprozesse gegen verlogenen Propagandisten wie dich, die jeden, der die Beweise gesehen hat, jeden Zeugen und die Offiziellen, die an Hand dieser Beweise Recht spreachen werden, als Nazis beschimpfen... die wären allerdings durchaus angebrachft.

Leider darf man halt in Deutschland nahezu Alles, wenn man die "das ist alles nur Antisemitismus"-Karte zieht.

Genauso wie man in Israel die Demokratie abschaffen, Journalisten erschießen und Völkermord begehen kann, weil "Nein, ihr hasst nur Juden" als Universalantwort auf jede Kritik funktioniert. Und wag es ja nicht, zu erwähnen, dass es ebenfalls Juden sind, die sich gegen denScheiß wehren. Dann fangen die Leute an völlig durchzudrehen und entwickeln sogar schaum vorm Mund, während sie dich als Nazis beschimpfen, weil du gewagt hast ihnen nicht die alleinige Deutungshoheit über die Realität zu überlassen und sogar diese bösartigen Dinger namens Fakten gemannt hast.

Also klar: Wir sind alle Nazis. Es gibt nichts anderes in Deutschland. Bitte lauf gaaaanz weit weg und vergiss, dass es das Land gibt. Das ist das Beste, was ~~ein so verwirrter Verstand wie du für uns~~ du für dich selbst und die Welt tun kannst. Wirklich!