It is too late. You'd have to rebuild an entire industry. There is no trained personnel for this, no suplly chains, no plans or up-to-date regulations, nothing. It will cost billions over billions and take at least decade before you even have your first new powerplants.

You can install many times their capacity in renewables for cheaper and without the riscs and dependencies attached in that time span. That's a fact and you can hate it and would be right, but that doesn't change it. Nuclear is over for Germany and the cries to reinstate it are nothing but populism.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's a bad take. Germany is saying it's too late for decades. If not for people like you, they would already have nuclear up and running.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This "people like me" here hasn't voted for not putting perfectly fine power plants to good use and especially not for using coal instead.

I'm also not aware of people claiming it's too late because of practical reasons "for decades". On the one hand I don't think the narrative was centered around practicality, but ideology. The opponents of nuclear didn't want to take the risks and didn't want the responsibility of nuclear waste. There was also a lot of fearmongering which had nothing to do with practicality either. On the other hand the fate of nuclear in Germany was only sealed when Fukushima happened, that's not even one decade ago iirc. There was a chance of returning to nuclear, at least with emerging technologies, up until that point. But when it happened, the last opposition to ending nuclear capitulated (and probably filled their pockets with money from the coal lobby).

This whole debate about nuclear in Germany was brought up again by populists. The damage is done and it will not be undone. It will take years to even reactivate the usable power plants we have right now and there is zero interest by companies to build new ones. You'd have to state-fund it pretty much 100%, which no one will support. And even if you did, renewables are still cheaper. The people who have maintained these plants are retired or have new jobs by now. There will be mass protest basically for sure if you change course now. It won't happen and doesn't make sense.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just said the same shit again.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you don't seem to understand that you are wrong on plain facts and also rudely overgeneralizing. To make it so clear even people like you can understand: If you presented me the facts 10 years ago and asked whether we should use nuclear, I would probably have said yes.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Lol ook

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

China has a supply chain for nuclear. it's doable.

(China and nuclear in the same comment, here they come)

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, the country that might straight up ban Chinese hardware in networks because of security concerns and that wants to reduce its dependency on China is going to let China build their power grid. Not that I like this fascist dictatorship better or less than any other, but if anything like this where to happen we would 100% turn to US companies. And this would only solves one of the many issues - supply. I mean, if you really want to anything is possible, but then you might as well go straight for renewables like other countries successfully did.