Germany approves bringing coal-fired power plants back online this winter
Germany's cabinet on Wednesday approved putting on-reserve lignite-fired power plants back online from October until the end of March 2024, the economy ministry said, as a step to replace scarce natural gas this winter and avoid shortages.
You're viewing a single thread.
Shutting down the nuclear plants is probably the worst thing the Germans have done. At least it's in the top3.
Worse than... Literal genocide?
Genocide is def more evil, but the amount of coal and gas germans are burning will probably kill a lot more people.
Y'know, I think you're off in terms of scale, but your point is valid. Coal is so extremely bad for people even outside of its impact on GHGs.
I mean, from a climat perspective ....
That was sort of an asshole comment if we're being honest with each other. We're here talking about climate change, not WW2.
Germany's history doesn't just consist of: "It was founded, they built nuclear plants, then they shut them down and ran coal"
Sure, so when there's an article about Japan's population declining do you comment insightful things about them getting nuked? You sound like a wanna-be edgy 16 year old twat.
Still a low blow.
Fun fact: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
No it isn't and it will never be. Doesn't matter how many time you repeat that lie.
The actual fact (very clearly told in the studies that are then brought up to justify the rediculous claim) is: Coal power plants 60 years ago (that's how old the study is) spread more radioactivity via fly ash, then escapes through the massive concrete walls of a running reactor. That's it. No mention of actual waste or anything else.
So coal power is more radioactive than nuclear power only if nuclear power would not create any waste at all and also not contaminate anything that has to be build back and cared for. So basically in a computer game where we you just click on it to remove it from your map, not in any reality.
Seriously has anyone actually read the shit you parrot or is there really a fundamental lack of ability to read beyond clickbait headlines?
PS: Also that radioactivity by fly-ash is based on the natural radioactity contained in earth and stone. Can you imagine the difference in radiation spread by you compared to the world around you? Yeah, there is none... with very small variations by which layer of earth you look at.
So basically you can also pretend that picking up a rock and throwing it at your head is me radiating my surroundings...
Actually that isn't even true. Because decades of nuclear testing has actual incresed the radiation in our natural surroundings, so layers of earth buried for quite some time actually contain lower radiation. If they had done the same study just two decades later then that fly-ash would not even have registered against the normal radiation level around us.
I really want to give you an updoot, but... could you please cite sources?
Here is a source from the IAEA.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf
In fact, the fly ash emitted from burning coal for electricity by a power plant, carries into the surrounding environment, 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
You could have clicked the link above and read it yourself (for example here). It's about a study from 1978 with data often much older from plants in Tenessee and Alabama (known for their magnicicient regulations, especially at that time cough)
To quote from that article:
"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities."
"Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants."
"According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays."
You will not find any mention of nuclear waste in there because the actual only number they used in that study is radiation living next to running nuclear power plant... as a base line to compare against.
EDIT: As for the increasing levels of radiation. The UN has a lot to say about that:
"The main man-made contribution to the exposure of the world's population has come from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, from 1945 to 1980. Each nuclear test resulted
in unrestrained release into the environment of substantial quantities of radioactive materials, which were widely dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited everywhere on
the Earth’s surface"
Yes... here we can actually talk about nuclear waste. It's still less harmful then nuclear testing was.
The good thing about nuclear waste, is you aren't breathing it in. You can just bury it and kinda forget about it.
The most radioactive stuff decays quickly, so it won't be dangerous for generations to come. The less radioactive stuff can last millions of years, but the amount of radiation it creates is too small to be harmful (with the proper precautions).
Quickly is around 100 000 years. Konrad mine, Asse II mine, WIPP are here to remind that it is not simple.
The engineers who say there is no risk are the same ones who recommended dumping nuclear waste into the sea in the 1960s and 1970s.
I was thinking more like 30 years. With a 100 000 years half-life, the radiation amount should be small enough not to be a problem.
Some waste are dangerous for 300 years but other will kill you even after 100 000 ans. Some need to be store for 1 million years.
In that top three is also my previous Audi A6
