"Fun" fact: this heat wave already has a Wikipedia page that also shows of the 22 affected areas only four (Austria, Jersey, Slovakia and Slovenia) have not (yet) recorded a record high temperature.
It’s funny, you still see people having a shot about it not being that hot.
That’s a blistering day in Queensland, where I am. With our normal humidity, it kills. I’d imagine Florida would be a good comparison. Sure, I’ve routinely felt 44-45C in summer but fucking hell, in Germany that is truly insane
A comparison would be an above 45C day here.
The other issue too is UV level and how unaccustomed they are to tolerating and preventing that.
I honestly have no idea ay, it’s not my science. I should add as well, we’re currently being battered by solar activity on top of the heat in the northern hemisphere.
I do know the southern hemisphere has higher instances of UV exposure due to it facing the sun more directly in summer.
Eh... 100+ degrees is pretty common in much of the US during summer. Every state in the union has broken 100 degrees and the majority do so every year.
The bigger one, is only a handful break 100 degrees and stay there for extend periods. And only a handful break 100 AND have 90% humidity to go along with it.
The Midwest can be a real bitch and give you 100 degrees and 90% humidity one day and snow the next some times. It's great!
Not only is there no air conditioning, but the average house is really well insulated, which is great in winter but can make it really difficult to cool your house down in this kind of heat
Germany has laws about requiring a certain heating level in the winter for safety and comfort reasons. I hope we can vote the CDU out next opportunity and talk about requiring a certain cooling level in the summer because it's dangerously hot in most apartments these days.
I won't rant about landlords here but like, if there isn't a law this change won't happen and people will die because of it. I can't imagine living in a Dachgeschoss right now. My last one got ~5-10 degrees hotter than outside.
There are legal limits above which you are allowed to withhold rent. I do not know them by heart since I live in a sunny but colder region of Germany.
So at some point the owner has to take measures to lower the temperature. Be it by installing better insulation or by installing AC.
Also: you only have to prove it's too warm, the owner would need to prove you yourself are causing the heat, if they want to curb paying.
There is no general legal framework for this. There have been decisions in court to allow the withholding of rent due to heat, or to force the landlord to improve the building. However, there have also been cases where the court ruled that the heat is part of "general risk of living". It all depends on the exact situation and the decision of a judge, because most landlords will probably tell you to kick rocks when you contact them about this.
After consulting the Grüneberg, you seem to be right. That is probably just a matter of time though. The Germam High court is notorously pro renter and climate change will also make these matters only worse.
All numbers are made up. Celsius is no less fake than farenheit. They are both derived from actual physical processes (an amount of energy required to change the temperature of a specific amount of water), just using different units.
Several accounts of how he originally defined his scale exist, but the original paper suggests the lower defining point, 0 °F, was established as the freezing temperature of a solution of brine made from a mixture of water, ice, and ammonium chloride (a salt).[2][3] The other limit established was his best estimate of the average human body temperature, originally set at 90 °F, then 96 °F (about 2.6 °F less than the modern value due to a later redefinition of the scale).[2]
Yeah, the freezing point of a random solution, and the perceived temperature of the human body makes as much sense as the freezing and boiling point of water for reference. Kelvin is objectively better, but centigrade is immediately understandable as it uses easily understandable reference points.
Why not? Merz is the chancellor after all. It's safe to assume the majority of voters wanted him to be in power, even if they are all retirees and idiots.
That is no excuse, our majority has been voting again and again for a mixture of CDU and SPD - two parties that give a fuck about the environment. And the AFD is probably gaining more and more votes. This country is becoming a total shit show. Aber die Grünen...
Show me one country governed by a green majority. Also, prove the majority vote for SPD and CDU is based in a support for coal and not just climate being not a priority when voting.
My point is it is pointless to point at Germany for "supporting" coal burning electricity. Germany is not a singularity here and has the same problems with conservative politicians as any other european country.
Climate not being a priority is the ground for leaders to support coal and overall inaction.
Same as in France, where Macron said (again) that he couldn't possibly anticipate a historical canicule event, even though there was one in 2003, and scientists and activists have been warning that France was warming up at least twice faster than the rest of the world.
Same in Canada where Carney rescinded almost all climate policies in favor of oil business.
It's time to recognize our collective responsibility here: we elect ignorant idiots!
To me, your take is completely uninformed, so allow me to enlighten you. When Russia attacked Ukraine, oil prices spiked and conservative media were trying to cause a panic that Germany hadn't enough natural gas to get through the winter. Tangent: The natural gas levels are much lower today than they ever were 2022, but because we now have a conservative government, conservative media doesn't care. Anyway, because the start of the Ukraine war was such a volatile time and to assuage any fears, the last government decided to give the last 3 operational nuclear power plants a 6 month extension and to bring back coal power plants as backup. And that is what they ever where. A backup. And building nuclear power takes decades and costs billions. They help neither in the short-, nor long-term.
After the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and subsequent anti-nuclear protests, the government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[7][8] Eight of the 17 operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima.
While nuclear power was gradually phased out of the German power mix, Germany increased its use of fossil fuel energy by 7% over the period 2002–2022, with a massive increase in usage of natural gas and only modest reductions of coal power and oil power.[9] By some estimates, Germany could have achieved a 73% reduction in its carbon emissions by retaining nuclear power during the period 2002–2022 and could have saved €696 billion on its energy transition.[9]
Yeah well, that's the conservative government for you. We could've just as easily transitioned from nuclear to renewables, which don't have the nuclear waste problem that is still unsolved. And Germany was for a brief time leading renewable energy innovation. But when the conservative government was faced with the cost of providing the infrastructure for this up-and-coming industry branch of the future, they instead cut all funding. This directly lead to the downfall of the German renewable sector ("Altmaier-Delle"). So while you are correct, when taking into account the entire time span from 2002, that Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas especially, it is incorrect to say that not sticking with nuclear was the sole reason for this. Betting on renewables was absolutely feasible even back then, as the current boom of renewables aptly demonstrates. But the conservatives do what conservatives do best: Stifle the future by fearing the up-front investment cost and sticking to the old and familiar instead of betting on the new and future-proof, even when the old way of doing this has already been shown to be unsustainable.
Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions.
So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the "good citizen", but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
No, at least in the case of Germany, keeping them running was simply not an economically viable option. They were ANCIENT, so would've needed a fuckton of work, which would've taken forever AND cost a fortune. This is the opinion of the energy industry THEMSELVES, not from bleeding heart liberals.
There's basically no universe where building nuclear is a better option RIGHT NOW than just building more renewables and batteries and a smarter net.
Plus on top to the current topic of ever hotter summers:
What do nuclear power plants help if they need to be shut down constantly b/c of too hot water temperatures in the rivers? (looks at France)
PV loses a bit of efficiency in heat, but is still very much operational.
That was 2023 to prevent an energy crisis triggered by the russian invasion in Ukraine and these coal plants (not mines!) were already shut down again.
Only because your entire country was brainwashed by Russian propaganda in the '90s. Germany used to produce 25% of its power from nuclear. As far as I can tell, currently you produce none from nuclear and still 25% from coal and another 25% from natural gas.
Most of our fuel rods came from russia. Also, nuclear is prohibitively expensive, uninsureable, and has unanswered questions regarding permanent waste storage.
The answer is both. Germany really did fuck up closing those plants. Just like the US 🥲 and for more reasons than you know. Breeding plutonium wouldn't be the worst idea at this point in history.
Idk about that, but even if, but uranium is fairly abundant in the earth, more than gold or silver. Getting it from somewhere else is not a big deal.
nuclear is prohibitively expensive
Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.
uninsureable
That's wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.
Fukushima was a problem of risk assessment and massive complacency about procedures, where fundamental security protocols were ignored to "safe some money". Also, building a nuclear power plant in an area that is facing tsunamis almost regularly was pretty dumb. And Chernobyl was a case of "What happens if we experiment with that hot rock we know nothing about?"
and has unanswered questions regarding permanent waste storage.
Yes, but it's no longer as much of a problem. We've gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we're able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible. Even tho that processing method hasn't been put to the test yet afaik.
Renewables are the answer
Probably not for germany. We don't fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power.
Solar is the first choice, we'd need absurd amounts of space for solar panels. Also, it's obviously only available during the day, making batteries necessary. And I mean a LOT of fucking batteries.
Wind is great and widely available in the north of germany - but that doesn't help the south. Moving power from north germany to south germany is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Also has the battery problem.
Hydro is cool, where available. Just bad that it's barely available. Same with geothermal.
Leaves us with biomass, which is a nice supplement to the power grid to use up waste from the agricultural sector - but it's not going to carry germanies power needs in any meaningful way.
100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany. It's just a wishful thinking. We can't magically produce vast amounts of power anywhere. We need a way to produce a reliable base load even in areas that are not in a great position for renewable power.
Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.
Even over the lifetimenof a plant, nuclear is by far the most expensive form of power generation.
That's wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.
Yet no insurance company will insure an NPP. They are uninsurable.
We've gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we're able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible.
We already do have a huge problem storing the waste we don't have and nuclear waste is too dangerous to rely on hypothetical reusability. Germany's federal Ministry for Nuclear Safety released a report in 2015 estimating the total cost of dismantling and managing nuclear waste from german NPPs based on 2012 prices and not including the cost of disposal facilities to be aroun 6 billion Euro until 2080.
We don't fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power. […] 100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany.
It is though. First thing you miss ia that Germany does not have an isolated power grid. In fact, the Conrinental European Synchronous Area is one of the largest synchronous electrical grids in the world.
Second, the number of available batteries is constantly growing with fun concepts as using your electric car's battery for overnight electricity. Every home can have sufficient battery storage individually (even without BEVs).
Third, there are still massive capacities for wind parks and solar parks all over Germany and certain concepts can even help mitigating certain consequences of climate change already in effect, like agriphotovoltaic protecting crops.
The future is renewables. Nuclear is superfluous, too expensive and too much hassle.
@Forester@CyberEgg And over 50 % are renewable. In fact: a vast part of German nuclear technology derives from Russia. So why would it be russian propaganda convincing the germans from renewable? Of course you mean they propagated Gas and oil, but that only worked for the CDU and the far right.
In fact: a vast part of German nuclear technology derives from Russia
In what reality do you live? Did you forget that all nuclear plants (ignore the single one in East Germany that was immediately shut down after reunification) were built in West Germany?
Yeah they definetly stole all that Russian Soviet technology from the exploded reactor that lacked a freaking containment back in the 80s....
Because Russia is not dependent on selling fissile material or renewables to support its war machine; it sells petrochemicals and will continue to do so into 2027 and possibly further as lawmakers continue to squabble.
sry but german nuclear power plants were a mismanaged mess and their closure probably saved lives. all power plants along the rhine river leaked thousands of tobs of irradiated water into the environment, same goes for those at the neckar. those are the ones i know for a fact.
they were outdated. mismanaged and ticking time bombs and it was time to put them to rest, maybe not that quick but better than never.
building new power plants just doesn't make sense because renewables are just WAYYYY cheaper in the long run aswell as the fact nobody wants to build or run a power plant. that's just an afd and markus söder pipedream.
solar/wind is about 7ct/kwh after investments while nuclear fuel is at about 35ct/kwh
our renewable output is almost doubling every year despite the cdu government's best efforts to turn back to coal because reiche is a board member of E.On.
Fuck germany but their nuclear exit was a net positive.
all power plants along the rhine river leaked thousands of tobs of irradiated water into the environment, same goes for those at the neckar. those are the ones i know for a fact.
You have to do a bit more than just open the website and immediately dismiss it. Granted, it's in German, but clicking on the individual reactors gives you a list of incidents there.
If you want something more condensed, here is a list of incidents in
if you look into the other comment you'll see i posted a link with a map of all european npp's and if you click on them you'll see all recorded accidents at these power plants.
i'm also not trying to argue that nuclear is worse than coal, far from it evn. but the power plants we had were old and dangerous and in the age of cheap renewables it doesn't make sense to build them anymore in europe
Since everyone mostly responded to the nuclear stuff, I am not very aware of a reopening or even extention of german coal mining. As far as I know the predefined end of germanys coal mining (at the very least surface coal mining) is still 2030 (unless the CDU decided to fuck that over as well).
With what's happening in the UK would that also be a heat dome? I only ask because that page says that it prevents precipitation but over here we've had hailstones 3 times and rain a whole bunch in very short bursts but once it stops it's dried up before the end of the hour and it's just as if not hotter than before.
And people still laugh at us for not having air conditioning in residential buildings. To be fair, you have to be a sort of clown to rent a place from greedy landlords, but this is 2026 we’re talking about, it’s the best I can do
I don't know why this BS is still upheld so firmly but nobody laughs about AC in residential buildings. And I personally never heard someone doing that even years ago before when heat waves in Europe were less common and less severe.
Also, this:
you have to be a sort of clown to rent a place from greedy landlords,
is an extremely priviliged and ignorant statemenr, wtf?
I've seen plenty Americans bring up in discussions on how it's funny that most Europeans still don't have a proper AC or heat pump in their homes, when the past summers have been getting increasingly hot lately.
It's common place now in new constructions but a lot of old landlords simply refuse to put down the tiniest investment into something like a split unit AC, especially since it raises the property value as well.
With the upcoming renewable energy laws they'll have to do it sooner or later anyways, but instead I'm forced to make do with an arguably terrible mono unit AC for the time being.
The clown being me in this case, sorry if it was interpreted wrong
What I am saying is that if landlords were just a little bit more human, fewer people would like me be suffering in their homes right now. It doesn't help the current housing crisis at all.
If you own a property and plan ahead these issues can be avoided easily, getting a proper AC or heatpump installed isn't really that expensive in the long-term but many are still refusing to do it or are putting it off unnecessarily.
119 Comments
tja@sh.itjust.works · 103 pts · 37d
Random afd fanboy: "that's just summer"
UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 37d
The neat thing is: It's a record high. It was literally never this hot before.
Not that these discussions are about facts at all, but now you have one to confront them with.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 36d
It may have been this hot when that asteroid hit, so I'm calling BS
homik@slrpnk.net · 93 pts · 37d
fleem@piefed.zeromedia.vip · 85 pts · 37d
i get to say this every year
but it's the coolest summer of the rest of our lives
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 42 pts · 37d
Locally, not necessarily true. Globally, almost definitely.
kunaltyagi@programming.dev · 5 pts · 36d
Seems like every day we're getting coolest day of the month
msage@programming.dev · 4 pts · 35d
This is El Nino, so ut might be less hot next year.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 36d
Great work!
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 41 pts · 37d
"Fun" fact: this heat wave already has a Wikipedia page that also shows of the 22 affected areas only four (Austria, Jersey, Slovakia and Slovenia) have not (yet) recorded a record high temperature.
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 33 pts · 37d
Damn.
God damn even.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 11 pts · 37d
Insane ay
That’s hot for Australia
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 7 pts · 37d
Hot for much of the USA, not unheard of but still not to be fucked with heat.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 9 pts · 37d
It’s funny, you still see people having a shot about it not being that hot.
That’s a blistering day in Queensland, where I am. With our normal humidity, it kills. I’d imagine Florida would be a good comparison. Sure, I’ve routinely felt 44-45C in summer but fucking hell, in Germany that is truly insane
A comparison would be an above 45C day here.
The other issue too is UV level and how unaccustomed they are to tolerating and preventing that.
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 5 pts · 37d
This may be a dumb question but is the UV level necessarily changed by the heat dome?
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · -1 pts · 37d
I honestly have no idea ay, it’s not my science. I should add as well, we’re currently being battered by solar activity on top of the heat in the northern hemisphere.
I do know the southern hemisphere has higher instances of UV exposure due to it facing the sun more directly in summer.
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 36d
Eh... 100+ degrees is pretty common in much of the US during summer. Every state in the union has broken 100 degrees and the majority do so every year.
The bigger one, is only a handful break 100 degrees and stay there for extend periods. And only a handful break 100 AND have 90% humidity to go along with it.
The Midwest can be a real bitch and give you 100 degrees and 90% humidity one day and snow the next some times. It's great!
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 6 pts · 36d
It’s really not, 100+ days aren’t common except in the desert southwest and Texas.
41.5 is 106 degrees.
It’s hot, even for the USA, but the real issue is these areas don’t have universal air conditioning like we tend to in the USA.
They aren’t being wussies or just not used to it, these are dangerous temperatures regardless of where you are.
Kacarott@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 35d
Not only is there no air conditioning, but the average house is really well insulated, which is great in winter but can make it really difficult to cool your house down in this kind of heat
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 1 pts · 35d
The good news is a well insulated house is easier to keep cool when/if retrofitted with split zone heat pumps.
The bad news is we’re gonna throw Europe past the climate range where heat pumps do the jobby.
gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 36d
Germany has laws about requiring a certain heating level in the winter for safety and comfort reasons. I hope we can vote the CDU out next opportunity and talk about requiring a certain cooling level in the summer because it's dangerously hot in most apartments these days.
I won't rant about landlords here but like, if there isn't a law this change won't happen and people will die because of it. I can't imagine living in a Dachgeschoss right now. My last one got ~5-10 degrees hotter than outside.
RidderSport@feddit.org · 9 pts · 36d
There are legal limits above which you are allowed to withhold rent. I do not know them by heart since I live in a sunny but colder region of Germany.
So at some point the owner has to take measures to lower the temperature. Be it by installing better insulation or by installing AC. Also: you only have to prove it's too warm, the owner would need to prove you yourself are causing the heat, if they want to curb paying.
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 36d
More insulation doesn't work. At some point it actively becomes more of a problem than a solution.
You HAVE to remove the heat inside some how or you just create an oven.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 35d
Insulation also prevents heat from entering
tromars@feddit.org · 5 pts · 35d
For a certain time, once it’s consistently hot for a few days that won’t help
meekah@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 35d
There is no general legal framework for this. There have been decisions in court to allow the withholding of rent due to heat, or to force the landlord to improve the building. However, there have also been cases where the court ruled that the heat is part of "general risk of living". It all depends on the exact situation and the decision of a judge, because most landlords will probably tell you to kick rocks when you contact them about this.
RidderSport@feddit.org · 2 pts · 35d
After consulting the Grüneberg, you seem to be right. That is probably just a matter of time though. The Germam High court is notorously pro renter and climate change will also make these matters only worse.
AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 37d
41.5 C is 106.7 Freedom units. That's too hot. Yikes.
db2@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 37d
*Eagle Cheeseburgers
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 36d
We use two °° symbols because they remind us of bitchin’ truck exhaust pipes.
db2@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 36d
Nothing is quite so American as truck nuts.
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 36d
Also bitchin' tits.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 35d
Fake degrees are imaginary numbers.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 35d
All numbers are made up. Celsius is no less fake than farenheit. They are both derived from actual physical processes (an amount of energy required to change the temperature of a specific amount of water), just using different units.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 33d
Yeah, the freezing point of a random solution, and the perceived temperature of the human body makes as much sense as the freezing and boiling point of water for reference. Kelvin is objectively better, but centigrade is immediately understandable as it uses easily understandable reference points.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 33d
Ok cool.
thepig@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 37d
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 35 pts · 37d
What support? Merz and Reiche don't count.
grandel@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 36d
Why not? Merz is the chancellor after all. It's safe to assume the majority of voters wanted him to be in power, even if they are all retirees and idiots.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 36d
We don't vote our chancellor, nor our ministers. We vote our parliament, the parliament votes the chancellor, the chancellor appoints their cabinets.
vermeil@feddit.org · 6 pts · 36d
That is no excuse, our majority has been voting again and again for a mixture of CDU and SPD - two parties that give a fuck about the environment. And the AFD is probably gaining more and more votes. This country is becoming a total shit show. Aber die Grünen...
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 36d
Show me one country governed by a green majority. Also, prove the majority vote for SPD and CDU is based in a support for coal and not just climate being not a priority when voting.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 36d
Not sure what your point is and I don't mean it's good, but Baden Württemberg is at least a state governed by the green.
Anyways I think we should move all elections to mid summer - that should get some people to consider climate issues when voting.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 36d
Baden-Württemberg is not a country.
My point is it is pointless to point at Germany for "supporting" coal burning electricity. Germany is not a singularity here and has the same problems with conservative politicians as any other european country.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 36d
Climate not being a priority is the ground for leaders to support coal and overall inaction.
Same as in France, where Macron said (again) that he couldn't possibly anticipate a historical canicule event, even though there was one in 2003, and scientists and activists have been warning that France was warming up at least twice faster than the rest of the world.
Same in Canada where Carney rescinded almost all climate policies in favor of oil business.
It's time to recognize our collective responsibility here: we elect ignorant idiots!
thepig@lemmy.zip · -20 pts · 37d
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works · 47 pts · 37d
To me, your take is completely uninformed, so allow me to enlighten you. When Russia attacked Ukraine, oil prices spiked and conservative media were trying to cause a panic that Germany hadn't enough natural gas to get through the winter. Tangent: The natural gas levels are much lower today than they ever were 2022, but because we now have a conservative government, conservative media doesn't care. Anyway, because the start of the Ukraine war was such a volatile time and to assuage any fears, the last government decided to give the last 3 operational nuclear power plants a 6 month extension and to bring back coal power plants as backup. And that is what they ever where. A backup. And building nuclear power takes decades and costs billions. They help neither in the short-, nor long-term.
Sailing7@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 37d
Username does not check out ^^
Very much detailed and to the point. Thanks for taking your time against false information matey ❤️
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 37d
Afaik after Fukushima they abandoned nuclear no?
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 37d
Yeah well, that's the conservative government for you. We could've just as easily transitioned from nuclear to renewables, which don't have the nuclear waste problem that is still unsolved. And Germany was for a brief time leading renewable energy innovation. But when the conservative government was faced with the cost of providing the infrastructure for this up-and-coming industry branch of the future, they instead cut all funding. This directly lead to the downfall of the German renewable sector ("Altmaier-Delle"). So while you are correct, when taking into account the entire time span from 2002, that Germany increased its reliance on coal and natural gas especially, it is incorrect to say that not sticking with nuclear was the sole reason for this. Betting on renewables was absolutely feasible even back then, as the current boom of renewables aptly demonstrates. But the conservatives do what conservatives do best: Stifle the future by fearing the up-front investment cost and sticking to the old and familiar instead of betting on the new and future-proof, even when the old way of doing this has already been shown to be unsustainable.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 36d
Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions. So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the "good citizen", but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
You can see how much sense it makes at any time:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes
That's what I call a cynical policy written by people who want to score points but don't give a flying fuck about climate.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 36d
France has to shut down NPPs every summer because the rivers used for cooling overheat.
r1veRRR@feddit.org · 1 pts · 35d
No, at least in the case of Germany, keeping them running was simply not an economically viable option. They were ANCIENT, so would've needed a fuckton of work, which would've taken forever AND cost a fortune. This is the opinion of the energy industry THEMSELVES, not from bleeding heart liberals.
There's basically no universe where building nuclear is a better option RIGHT NOW than just building more renewables and batteries and a smarter net.
chrizzly@feddit.org · 3 pts · 35d
Plus on top to the current topic of ever hotter summers: What do nuclear power plants help if they need to be shut down constantly b/c of too hot water temperatures in the rivers? (looks at France)
PV loses a bit of efficiency in heat, but is still very much operational.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 37d
That was 2023 to prevent an energy crisis triggered by the russian invasion in Ukraine and these coal plants (not mines!) were already shut down again.
And nuclear is not an alternative.
Forester@pawb.social · -10 pts · 37d
Only because your entire country was brainwashed by Russian propaganda in the '90s. Germany used to produce 25% of its power from nuclear. As far as I can tell, currently you produce none from nuclear and still 25% from coal and another 25% from natural gas.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 37d
Most of our fuel rods came from russia. Also, nuclear is prohibitively expensive, uninsureable, and has unanswered questions regarding permanent waste storage.
Renewables are the answer, not nuclear.
Forester@pawb.social · 5 pts · 37d
ALSO
Not correct its Canada the USA France and the Swiss. https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/DEU/year/2024/tradeflow/Imports/partner/ALL/product/284410
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 1 pts · 36d
This is from 2024. He's talking about when Germany still had more trade with Russia.
redsand@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 37d
The answer is both. Germany really did fuck up closing those plants. Just like the US 🥲 and for more reasons than you know. Breeding plutonium wouldn't be the worst idea at this point in history.
realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip · -1 pts · 37d
Idk about that, but even if, but uranium is fairly abundant in the earth, more than gold or silver. Getting it from somewhere else is not a big deal.
Upfront, absolutely. But cost drop dramatically with life time of the plant.
That's wrong. Nuclear Power Plants are incredibly safe. The security standards are immense and if everything is done by the books, nothing will happen.
Fukushima was a problem of risk assessment and massive complacency about procedures, where fundamental security protocols were ignored to "safe some money". Also, building a nuclear power plant in an area that is facing tsunamis almost regularly was pretty dumb. And Chernobyl was a case of "What happens if we experiment with that hot rock we know nothing about?"
Yes, but it's no longer as much of a problem. We've gotten really damn good at reusing burnt out fuel rods. I think we're able to reuse like 60% of the burnt out fuel rods, dramatically lowering the waste we produce. And I once read about a theoretical processing method that could be able to reuse 95% of the rods, making the waste almost negligible. Even tho that processing method hasn't been put to the test yet afaik.
Probably not for germany. We don't fulfill the requirements for widely used renewable power.
100% renewable energy is never going to be a thing for germany. It's just a wishful thinking. We can't magically produce vast amounts of power anywhere. We need a way to produce a reliable base load even in areas that are not in a great position for renewable power.
Nuclear is the best long term option we have.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 36d
Even over the lifetimenof a plant, nuclear is by far the most expensive form of power generation.
Yet no insurance company will insure an NPP. They are uninsurable.
We already do have a huge problem storing the waste we don't have and nuclear waste is too dangerous to rely on hypothetical reusability. Germany's federal Ministry for Nuclear Safety released a report in 2015 estimating the total cost of dismantling and managing nuclear waste from german NPPs based on 2012 prices and not including the cost of disposal facilities to be aroun 6 billion Euro until 2080.
It is though. First thing you miss ia that Germany does not have an isolated power grid. In fact, the Conrinental European Synchronous Area is one of the largest synchronous electrical grids in the world.
Second, the number of available batteries is constantly growing with fun concepts as using your electric car's battery for overnight electricity. Every home can have sufficient battery storage individually (even without BEVs).
Third, there are still massive capacities for wind parks and solar parks all over Germany and certain concepts can even help mitigating certain consequences of climate change already in effect, like agriphotovoltaic protecting crops.
The future is renewables. Nuclear is superfluous, too expensive and too much hassle.
Btw, here is more to read on why nuclear is not a solution (german website): https://quellen.tv/energie#Kernkraft
alibee@nrw.social · -2 pts · 37d
@Forester @CyberEgg And over 50 % are renewable. In fact: a vast part of German nuclear technology derives from Russia. So why would it be russian propaganda convincing the germans from renewable? Of course you mean they propagated Gas and oil, but that only worked for the CDU and the far right.
carrylex@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
In what reality do you live? Did you forget that all nuclear plants (ignore the single one in East Germany that was immediately shut down after reunification) were built in West Germany?
Yeah they definetly stole all that
RussianSoviet technology from the exploded reactor that lacked a freaking containment back in the 80s....alibee@nrw.social · 2 pts · 36d
@carrylex After the Fall of the Iron curtain the german nuclear plants were using mostly russian and kasachish uranium.
Forester@pawb.social · 1 pts · 37d
Because Russia is not dependent on selling fissile material or renewables to support its war machine; it sells petrochemicals and will continue to do so into 2027 and possibly further as lawmakers continue to squabble.
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-gas-in-germany-a-complicated-50-year-relationship/a-61057166 https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/eu-russian-energy/
alibee@nrw.social · 1 pts · 36d
@Forester but Germany would rely on foreign uranium sources. Wo why would you make yourself dependent on the next foreign source of Energy?
Twongo@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 37d
sry but german nuclear power plants were a mismanaged mess and their closure probably saved lives. all power plants along the rhine river leaked thousands of tobs of irradiated water into the environment, same goes for those at the neckar. those are the ones i know for a fact.
they were outdated. mismanaged and ticking time bombs and it was time to put them to rest, maybe not that quick but better than never.
building new power plants just doesn't make sense because renewables are just WAYYYY cheaper in the long run aswell as the fact nobody wants to build or run a power plant. that's just an afd and markus söder pipedream.
solar/wind is about 7ct/kwh after investments while nuclear fuel is at about 35ct/kwh
our renewable output is almost doubling every year despite the cdu government's best efforts to turn back to coal because reiche is a board member of E.On.
Fuck germany but their nuclear exit was a net positive.
carrylex@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 37d
Do you actually have proof/a source for that?
Twongo@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 36d
https://www.global2000.at/karte-atomkraft-europa
carrylex@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
That is a map of reactors in europe. What has that to do with your claim?
Chaf@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 36d
You have to do a bit more than just open the website and immediately dismiss it. Granted, it's in German, but clicking on the individual reactors gives you a list of incidents there.
If you want something more condensed, here is a list of incidents in
Germany https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_meldepflichtiger_Ereignisse_in_deutschen_kerntechnischen_Anlagen
or Europe https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_St%C3%B6rf%C3%A4llen_in_europ%C3%A4ischen_kerntechnischen_Anlagen
though also only available in German. Just because an incident does not make it to the news, does not mean that no radiation was leaked.
Twongo@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 36d
if you scroll through you'll see a map with all european npp's and their recorded incidents
thepig@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 36d
Twongo@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 36d
if you look into the other comment you'll see i posted a link with a map of all european npp's and if you click on them you'll see all recorded accidents at these power plants.
i'm also not trying to argue that nuclear is worse than coal, far from it evn. but the power plants we had were old and dangerous and in the age of cheap renewables it doesn't make sense to build them anymore in europe
Potti@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 36d
Since everyone mostly responded to the nuclear stuff, I am not very aware of a reopening or even extention of german coal mining. As far as I know the predefined end of germanys coal mining (at the very least surface coal mining) is still 2030 (unless the CDU decided to fuck that over as well).
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 36d
You think German politicians care?
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 36d
Also Germany: MORE COAL!
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 36d
AND DATA CENTERS
Altarius@feddit.org · 1 pts · 34d
Didn't our coal numbers hit 50y lows?
DevDave@piefed.social · 11 pts · 37d
just need to hang on for a bit longer and when AMOC fails the heat waves will be a much lower priority! \s
EldenLord@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 37d
See, if that happens, it will cause extreme cold in winter which basically makes up for the heatwaves in summer! Checkmate liberals /s
Vandals_handle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
The irony, reuse Ugandan refugee camps for Northern European post AMOC glacial refugees. Also /s
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social · 11 pts · 36d
Hang in there our German brothers and sisters, the heat finally broke in NL last night.
Of course, it's still 26C and 80% humidity, so YMMV.
Pat@feddit.nu · 5 pts · 35d
I'm in SWEDEN right now. YES, SWEDEN. It's morning, cool morning air, window fully open. 30 degrees. Hits 35 peak, usually. Absolutely insane.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 35d
Enviable.
thorhop@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 37d
Every year is a goddamn record. Follow @ZLabe@fediscience.org for more.
Surp@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 36d
How much longer till we all die anyways
tylersloeper@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 36d
Apart from Global Warming, what explains the crazy high temperature? No wind? Too many mountains blocking weather? Why is it so hot?
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 14 pts · 36d
It is a specific weather phenomenon called Heat Dome.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 35d
With what's happening in the UK would that also be a heat dome? I only ask because that page says that it prevents precipitation but over here we've had hailstones 3 times and rain a whole bunch in very short bursts but once it stops it's dried up before the end of the hour and it's just as if not hotter than before.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 35d
If I understood correctly, the UK was hit by the edges of the dome which can bring some quite turbulent weather.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 35d
Ahh that makes sense, thanks
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 35d
Not having A/C, mainly.
LordCrom@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 36d
That's like the daily temp in South Florida right now..... And we haven't even hit August yet.
uniquethrowagay@feddit.org · 5 pts · 36d
There are only three air conditioning units in all of Germany, though.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 35d
We haven't hit July yet
Raccoon_Rick@altgag.net · -15 pts · 37d
And people still laugh at us for not having air conditioning in residential buildings. To be fair, you have to be a sort of clown to rent a place from greedy landlords, but this is 2026 we’re talking about, it’s the best I can do
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 48 pts · 37d
I don't know why this BS is still upheld so firmly but nobody laughs about AC in residential buildings. And I personally never heard someone doing that even years ago before when heat waves in Europe were less common and less severe.
Also, this:
is an extremely priviliged and ignorant statemenr, wtf?
Raccoon_Rick@altgag.net · 7 pts · 37d
I've seen plenty Americans bring up in discussions on how it's funny that most Europeans still don't have a proper AC or heat pump in their homes, when the past summers have been getting increasingly hot lately.
It's common place now in new constructions but a lot of old landlords simply refuse to put down the tiniest investment into something like a split unit AC, especially since it raises the property value as well.
With the upcoming renewable energy laws they'll have to do it sooner or later anyways, but instead I'm forced to make do with an arguably terrible mono unit AC for the time being. The clown being me in this case, sorry if it was interpreted wrong
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de · 14 pts · 37d
Wait, I misread your comment, thought you said "europeans laugh about americans having AC in residential buildings".
But now I'm even more confused about what you're trying to say...
Raccoon_Rick@altgag.net · 1 pts · 36d
What I am saying is that if landlords were just a little bit more human, fewer people would like me be suffering in their homes right now. It doesn't help the current housing crisis at all.
If you own a property and plan ahead these issues can be avoided easily, getting a proper AC or heatpump installed isn't really that expensive in the long-term but many are still refusing to do it or are putting it off unnecessarily.
Sailing7@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 37d
Just hijacking this because mono-unit:
A buddy of mine has the PortaSplit. Its suitable for renting places and is not a mono-unit.
He's veery happy with it. But its sold out everywhere.
There's even a map ^^
https://braucheklima.de/