Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kornmachine t1_j4aufnm wrote

There's much more to this.

RWE actually made a deal to pull out of coal mining 8 years earlier (so 2030 instead of 2038). That village was 'sacrificed' to RWE as part of the deal.

I still don't think it's a particularly good deal and electrifying coal is stupid. However, crying about it now is a bit late.

119

jens-2420 t1_j4b23ye wrote

Five other villages were saved in the deal, and the end of coal mining eight years earlier than planned will help, too.

The protests at Lützerath are a mere symbol, causing heavy costs, and were seen as pathetic by many even before.

Do not forget: The tree house guy, the tunnel guys, and those having put their arms in oil drums with concrete will have to pay for their salvage.

I wonder if they have fun afterwards.

29

gingerfawx t1_j4g3jke wrote

They'll still end up costing the taxpayer a pretty penny. This is bullshit. There are plenty of things to protest sensibly, in ways that don't alienate the mainstream that may still make a difference somewhere and yet this is how they burn their energy, money, and social capital. It feels like self-sabotage.

−3

YaGirlKellie t1_j4hgmig wrote

That's how everyone who isn't an idiot feels about people wanting to start more coal mining in 2023.

8

DukeOfGeek t1_j4k1m8n wrote

And this is the kind of protest that's needed. Blocking coal mines and pipelines, not throwing soup at art.

3

vechey t1_j4jk0la wrote

Gosh if people were just a little more polite the big corporations and rich politicians wouldn’t be destroying the Earth.

5

Nervous_Promotion819 t1_j4bvdwn wrote

It must also be said that calling this cluster of houses a village is a bit of an exaggeration. It's a hamlet (Weiler) at most

4

IvetRockbottom t1_j4czv5i wrote

But that, in no way, changes the argument on either side. And if it took a redefinition for you to be convinced, either way, then you are missing the point.

19

Nervous_Promotion819 t1_j4d29by wrote

Yes, let's all simply ignore the fact that the deal is that RWE still gets this hamlet and that instead of 2038 coal mining will end in 2030 and no 7 other villages will be destroyed either

−6

IvetRockbottom t1_j4d3n75 wrote

That wasn't your statement. Whether you like the agreement or not, what is the point of distinguishing village vs hamlet? Nothing.

6

Nervous_Promotion819 t1_j4d5xv9 wrote

I just responded to a comment addressing the deal, which strangely nobody mentions, adding that the media also portrays the whole event as if it were an entire village being demolished. I honestly don't know what you want from me

−3

DiscoKroger t1_j4dttc0 wrote

Is this actually Weiler that’s being demolished or is it Lutzerath? They’re about 6 km apart. Lutzerath is/was indeed a village.

2

petit_cochon t1_j4b2znh wrote

Enough with the fucking coal.

43

viktoryf95 t1_j4b4v0k wrote

Shouldn’t have phased out nuclear then. Action, meet consequence.

83

BloodIsTaken t1_j4b89t2 wrote

> Shouldn’t have killed of renewables for 16 years then

FTFY. Nuclear wouldn’t have changed anything since all power plants in Germany are not safe enough to continue being operated without risking accidents.

−67

shady8x t1_j4b96es wrote

You know that nuclear plants are not a long lost technology and people can build new ones right? The shutting down of old plants could have coincided with the building of new ones...

66

Plastic_Wave t1_j4bsxiu wrote

No no, you don't understand. 3 mile island happened at the infancy of nuclear power generation when it was still poorly understood. It's not like 70 years worth of advancement in technology hasn't brought several generations of reactors with new safety standards or anything. So Lord knows we can't have nuclear power now, what if we have a repeat of Chernobyl or 3 mile island?

We have to shut it down

/s

38

BloodIsTaken t1_j4bcexx wrote

You do know that it takes years, if not over a decade to build new ones? Additionally, nuclear energy is very expensive - from the beginning of construction until operation several years go by where the NPP doesn’t generate energy, it takes a lot of resources to build.

Wind and Solar energy sources are much cheaper, easier and faster to build. They also don’t need fuel (the uranium Germany got for their NPPs largely came from Russia) and are much safer - NPPs need water for cooling, which is a problem in case of droughts as can be seen in France. They have to shut down some NPPs in winter and instead get their energy from - you guessed it - Germany.

Wind turbines have to be shut down if the wind is too strong. However, that doesn’t happen too often and - unlike NPPs, shutting down and restarting wind turbines is much easier and faster to do than with NPPs.

−32

shady8x t1_j4bdflb wrote

>You do know that it takes years, if not over a decade to build new ones?

The phase out policy was introduced in 1998. It was cancelled, but then re-introduced in 2011, which is still over a decade ago.

So like I said before, the shutting down of old plants could have coincided with the building of new ones.

40

Ilfirion t1_j4l0434 wrote

It at least seems that German energy experts agree on the following: Would the CDU followed the plan payed down by the spd/ green government - renewable mercy would have been enough to phase out coal and nuclear. But the CDU and the states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg would actually need to stop dragging their feet in that department.

1

Ocular_Username t1_j4dotg3 wrote

> You do know that it takes years, if not over a decade to build new ones?

I heard this argument in the 1990s. Then the 2000s. Then the 2010s. And now.

Weird.

5

nhomewarrior t1_j4cbk63 wrote

... If you got electricity from nuclear, then you wouldn't need as much electricity from coal you nincompoop.

Not just coal, but fucking lignite coal. There's essentially no dirtier fuel on earth.

15

Manadrache t1_j4b9u44 wrote

>all power plants in Germany are not safe enough to continue being operated without risking accidents.

Yeah and because of the risky German ones there are emergency plans if something goes wrong. Oh wait. That was Tihange in Belgium.

−21

BloodIsTaken t1_j4bckbr wrote

The operators themselves said that they couldn’t continue using the NPPs in Germany anymore because they aren’t up to safety standards anymore.

Edit:

>emergency plans if something goes wrong

Ever heard of a worst case scenario? An accident in an NPP can exceed that - and no emergency plans will work because there are no emergency plans that deal with exploding NPPs.

So why take the risk? Rather shut them down and build renewables - cheaper, faster and easier to build.

−18

ChalupaCabre t1_j4bwksw wrote

I don’t want to read all this or get in this stupid argument, but just wanted to say even the Russians are building mobile floating nuclear reactors.

It’s not an impossible task. Technology has advanced to make it much more safe, it just takes political willpower, which means support from the people.

5

BloodIsTaken t1_j4bxr9v wrote

Yeah, but it‘s a) stupidly expensive, b) takes very long to build, c) Germany got its uranium from Russia.

It‘s not a question of wether or not it‘s possible - it’s a question of wether practical - and it isn’t. It’s better to build wind and solar energy generators because they are cheaper, faster and easier to build. They don’t rely on fuel from Russia, they can be shut down in case of an emergency, they don’t risk destroying half a continent.

Building new NPPs now is not just stupid, it’s also a waste if money and resources.

−4

ChalupaCabre t1_j4bybgx wrote

Yeah much better idea to keep grinding away the earth to get a little bit of combustible coal residue out of it… taking 3 units of energy to produce 5 units of energy.

It’s simply brilliant, the pinnacle of modern caveman ingenuity. /s

9

nhomewarrior t1_j4cciid wrote

>So why take the risk? Rather shut them down and build renewables

Like fucking lignite? I don't know if you've realized this, but the sun doesn't shine in fucking Germany.

Sure, you can say "we ought to build more renewable energy plants", but that clearly is not what's actually happening. Germany has spent an incredible amount of resources trying to harness wind and sun and rivers and yet its obviously not enough... Hence the mining of lignite and destruction of the villages on top of those sources. You can see at least three giant holes in the ground in Germany from the fucking moon.

All to gather and burn the most dirty source of fuel on this planet.

1

BloodIsTaken t1_j4cfct1 wrote

> The sun doesn’t shine in fucking Germany

But you know what Germany has more than enough of? Wind. And I know that, because I live there. And no matter what idiots and fanatics like you say wind doesn’t just stop blowing over an entire country. The coast is always windy, Germany has huge areas which could be used for wind energy. But because of the goddamn CDU/CSU that can’t be done.

So fuck you, I do know which energy source can be used in Germany - and long-term, it’s not nuclear - but wind.

Edit: And funny (read: sad) how little you know about Germany. My family of 5 has enough hot water for each of us to shower every day - and the energy for heating comes from our own solar cells on the roof of the house. So I don’t know where you‘ve been in Germany, but seeing as you have no idea what you’re talking about, shut your mouth and piss off with your baseless arguments.

4

nhomewarrior t1_j4cj1q9 wrote

As per your edit, you should see how much more power you'd be getting in Arizona.

Also, wind doesn't blow all the time so are you gonna pumped-hydro or lithium-ion your way towards storage? Like, obviously the future of Germany at the moment is lignite..

−1

BloodIsTaken t1_j4cjwh9 wrote

> Also, wind doesn’t blow all the time

and that’s exactly what I already addressed in my comment: In northern Germany it’s always windy. The more south you go, the less windy it is - however every place in Germany has enough wind to make wind turbines useful and profitable.

Unlike NPPs, which need water - and some counties in Germany already have massive drought problems, so wasting even more water by having NPPs just doesn’t work!

> How much more Energy you would get in Arizona

Ah, so only the place that has the most sunlight should build solar energy generators because everyone else is missing sunlight? That logic is completely and utterly wrong. As long as a place has - on average - enough sunlight to make solar energy useful, you should use as much of it as possible.

3

Manadrache t1_j4as5eb wrote

To be fair the village is "empty". The villagers have been getting money by RWE. It is their land and activists don't belong on the property from RWE.

Fair? No, but who wants trepassers on their property?

30

LaminatedDenim OP t1_j4asrwm wrote

The village is empty because RWE bought them out to be able to mine coal. The activists are protesting against the extraction and burning of coal, as well as the fact that whole villages are able to be bought out for such a purpose. I'm glad the former inhabitants got paid to relocate, but that doesn't make the entire problem go away

Of course nobody wants trespassers on their property, that's the whole point about protesting. It's non-violent civil disobedience to protest against something that's destroying the earth

29

Maelas84 t1_j4bl4b4 wrote

Then don't take the money! Why are they protesting now? They didn't their money already lost likely. Don't take their money and then you can protest...

I don't understand this..

−1

Kyrvin t1_j4bqtr9 wrote

I don't know what it's called in Germany, but in the US, it's called Eminent Domain. The government can force you to sell your property for fair market price as long as it's for the "public good".

18

Cam515278 t1_j4c7f9b wrote

We have the same. But especially in coal mining cases, the actual inhabitants are usually very happy with the deal and not the people who are protesting

12

Manadrache t1_j4ay7s9 wrote

>Of course nobody wants trespassers on their property, that's the whole point about protesting. It's non-violent civil disobedience to protest against something that's destroying the earth

I am tired of this argument actually. That's the same those people say what protestors say that are glueing themselves on streets.

There are way less dangerous ways to do so.

It's raining in this area for days now and the earth is pretty wet, still they are hiding in tunnels or/and getting themselves and police in danger.

−20

LaminatedDenim OP t1_j4ayddt wrote

What would be a better way to protest, in your eyes? One that puts less people in danger, yet still draws enough attention that it actually has a chance to change things?

22

balding-cheeto t1_j4az36v wrote

There isn't a better way, people like the one you're replying to want protesters to sit down, shut up, and never be heard from again.

25

Manadrache t1_j4aznmi wrote

That's bullshit. Just do not put other people in danger.

−9

Manadrache t1_j4azirp wrote

Do you believe these things will change anything? You believe the greed of companies will be gone?

If I glue myself on a road and someone else dies like the biker in an accident a few weeks ago because the ambulance and special trucks don't have a chance to get there, is just shitty.

If I put myself in danger and force police and healthcare workers to help me like some do now in Lützerath is is shitty. At least the healthcare workers have already enough shit to do.

Why not protest at the power plant? At the front door of those politicians that are part of the decision?

−4

BloodIsTaken t1_j4b83k4 wrote

People blocked the town because that’s the only way to stop its demolition. Protesting in front of a power plant doesn’t do anything.

Since you brought up the “climate gluers”: When they glue themselves to the street drivers should form an emergency corridor as they are in a traffic jam. Since that doesn’t happen it’s bot the gluer‘s fault if an ambulance can’t get through - and I‘m not making that up, a court judged this way. The protesters block cars, which are a cause of CO2 emissions, and as such their actions are completely validated as their goal is to reduce these emissions.

Regarding „climate gluers“ and protest at a power plant: These people already did exactly that. They blocked airports, closed pipelines and protested in front of power plants and government buildings - with no media coverage at all. But when they throw food on a painting (which is protected by glass and not actually damaged) suddenly people are outraged.

Fact is, protesting doesn’t work - you don’t get enough attention when demonstrating “the right way“ and when you do something that gets people’s attention you are told to demonstrate somewhere where you don’t bother them.

9

LowDownSkankyDude t1_j4dedb6 wrote

The disruption is the point. It's fine that you don't want to put yourself at risk for an objectively good cause. It's not like civil disobedience is compulsory. However, imo, we're lucky have people willing to risk it all to make the world better for everyone. I'm not physically able to, anymore, and it warms my heart to know there are people who are able to, go all the way. Personally, I think this should viewed as an inspiration, rather than a nuisance.

3

Manadrache t1_j4dl5rn wrote

Guess it's just different on how people look at things. I don't see here a reason to put yourself at risk. I would fight for other things, yeah. But not this one.

Putting your own life in risk, sure. You are free to do so, but certain risks will get other people in danger that didn't ask for getting into this kind of trouble. It's just selfish. How on earth can that be okay?

Greta starting her friday for future day off from school was an inspiration. She never put someone else in risk. Putting others at risk while believing you are doing something good is just a lame excuse. Others did that in the past.

1

LowDownSkankyDude t1_j4do5yw wrote

I understand what you're saying, and fully respect your position, I simply disagree.

1

elycamp11 t1_j4at28z wrote

burning coal for energy is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, which are a leading cause of climate change.

11

wave_327 t1_j4atdyv wrote

shouldn't have closed their fucking nuclear plants then

42

BloodIsTaken t1_j4b6wyn wrote

  1. Nuclear power plants in Germany are not safe enough for continued use anymore without risking operating failures - and we all know what could happen in case if an accident.

  2. Germany wouldn’t have this problem if the CDU - the ruling party for the last 16 years - hadn’t made expanding and building more renewable energy sources so difficult.

  3. The majority of uranium used in NPPs in Germany came from Russia - which is not ideal when you want to be independent from other countries.

−4

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j4bwl0g wrote

  1. is BS. The plants were closed by political fiat. In particular to bring Green party into the ruling coalition in the late 1990's. Nothing to do with their safety. In fact, Germany's nuclear power plants are perfectly safe to operate. If they were not closed, Germany would not need to operate a single coal burning power plant today. Not a single one.
  2. is also BS. Germany was fast building renewable energy infrastructure. You may not be happy with the pace, but building large infrastructure takes time. They were also shutting down nuclear reactors, to appease Greens. Further increasing today's need for bringing back previously closed coal burning plants back online.
  3. There are other sources of uranium. Once fueled, nuclear power plant operates for about 3-6 years before its fuel rods need to be replaced. Putin could decide not to sell you more uranium, but effects of that would not be felt for many years. Unlike cutting off gas shipments, effects of which are felt very fast.
13

BloodIsTaken t1_j4byb4m wrote

regarding 2) : The CDU stopped building wind parks, made their construction more difficult by creating unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles and instead funded coal mining.

The fact that you say Germany is fast in building renewables shows that you don’t know much. Germany might be faster than other countries - but that’s not a point for Germany, it’s a point against those other countries.

Regarding 3) : Yeah, there are other sources. But fact is, Germany got most from Russia, so it doesn’t matter - other suppliers would have to get their uranium to Germany. And that would create dependency on other countries and - since these countries would most likely be farther away - be more harmful to the environment. I absolutely hate it when people say that nuclear energy doesn’t create co2 emissions - that ignores the time and resources spent building an NPP, mining uranium and getting it to the power plant.

−1

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j4c1ucr wrote

In short, you don't know much about how nuclear power plants operate, and the infrastructure behind it? You were told "nuclear bad", and you run with it.

EDIT: Also, thanks for confirming the fast pace of building infrastructure centered on renewables in Germany. As I said, you folks want stuff now; no pace is fast enough for you, unless it is instant. Reality doesn't work that way.

12

BloodIsTaken t1_j4cev9p wrote

You want me to go full NuClEaR bAd? I can do that.

1: Nuclear Power plants are huge targets for military and terrorist attacks. As seen in Ukraine, Russia occupied the largest power plant in Europe and is pretty much safe there - the ukrainian military can’t attack them there as doing so would risk destroying half of europe.

And Greenpeace has shown that you don’t need an army to do that. In a campaign they announced they were going to invade an NPP in France. The police was there to stop them but couldn’t do it - they essentially locked themselves out with Greenpeace activists inside the NPP. Terrorists or countries aiming to cripple (other) countries‘ energy supply could probably do so with ease.

2: Despite all of you nuclear fanboys claiming that the nuclear waste problem is already solved, this is still a lie - and it probably will be this way for a long time.

Unlike the myth perpetuated by you fanboys you can’t just stick it in the ground. Doing so would contaminate the environment - potentially killing countless animals, plants and people when groundwater gets contaminated.

And there is no long-term storage. It would would require a cave that is guaranteed to be completely sealed off from the rest of the world for at least a millennium, if not more. That means not a single crack through which water could get through, no chance of earthquakes or landslides. And we‘ve been looking for one for decades now.

3: Nuclear Power Plants take long to build.

> you folks want stuff now, no pace is fast enough for you, unless it is instant.

I want an energy source that doesn’t take ten years to be build with a constantly extending projected finish time. I know and understand that things take time - but if humanity has less than 7 years from now until the 1.5C mark is crossed after which climate change can never be stopped and will only snowball in speed an energy source that takes this long to build is useless.

4: Nuclear energy is expensive. Building a single power plant takes tens of billions of dollars/euro to build. Compare that to wind turbines, or solar, or photovoltaic, where the cost is in the thousands. Nuclear energy is just too expensive.

5: Nuclear Power Plants need water to cool. While that in itself might not be a problem, you have to look at an environmental problem: droughts. The entire world suffers more and more from droughts - and in France this has already created problems for NPPs. During winter they can’t operate their NPPs because they can’t be cooled - so they have to get their energy somewhere else.

In the future droughts will only become more frequent - and if you can’t use the NPPs you have wasted a decade, tens of billions of dollars and countless resources in a project doomed to fail.

—

So please, tell me: Why should I support nuclear energy? It‘s completely out of place - too expensive, too risky, and takes far too long to build. In contrast to that you have wind and solar energy, which cost a millionth, can be built a hundred times as fast and with far fewer resources. The choice between these is obvious - only an idiot wouldn’t understand that

2

[deleted] t1_j4evdcl wrote

[deleted]

1

bearcat09 t1_j4fpgn4 wrote

You still need water to condense the steam used for the turbine back into water. A lot of this water/heat is expelled via cooling towers or discharged back into a cooling pond/lake.

If your plant is on a river you are usually required to have a cooling tower because there are discharge temperature requirements to keep from impacting local wildlife.

1

Manadrache t1_j4axvox wrote

Somehow Germany dislikes nuclear plants more than coal ones.

Our energy prices are already pretty high. No need to close them right now to get the prices rising more up.

Suddenly people want to go all emissions free while others country keep fucking the climate up. This may sound like an asshole move, but I still want to be able to make a living. Companies don't give a fuck about me being able to pay my bills or give a fuck about climate change. It's about greed and the poor ones will lose. Doesn't matter which way.

5

burnodo2 t1_j4c3o3s wrote

did they mention WHY they need to do this?

20

nhomewarrior t1_j4ccwhp wrote

Lignite, or brown coal, or wet coal, is the worst kind of coal. It's often 20% water by weight and therefore you need a lot of it. Like a lot of coal.

27

Keenswin1 t1_j4hh9g5 wrote

They don’t really. They have been able to mass produce nuclear parts recently. And towns areas end up like West Virginia from coal production. Full of problems

0

iflyontrains t1_j4dkssw wrote

the ukraine russian war

−18

Charlem912 t1_j4dsfqm wrote

Completely false. They planned this 9 years ago and the coal is not going to be ready to use before 2025.

24

WolfThick t1_j4bpz7l wrote

Wait I thought they had significantly slowed the coal mining down before covid and we're moving towards more natural gas to replace it. Building some ocean going LPG and delivery ports would make better sense especially moving into the future.

12

nhomewarrior t1_j4cb8fj wrote

Germans decided nuclear power was too dangerous, but they needed electricity so 🤷

39

WolfThick t1_j4clfso wrote

So why don't they replace them with thorium reactors which is basically the safest type of energy you could possibly have on the planet

−4

browngray t1_j4d2yll wrote

They're mining lignite, so safety is already out of the equation.

Plus you'd have to make a production-grade thorium reactor first compared to building one out of an existing design. Research projects won't solve an energy crisis that needs the energy now than later.

16

defcon_penguin t1_j4ftu0l wrote

The plan of temporary replacing coal with gas during the scale up of renewables was made when Russian gas was still plenty and cheap. LPG is not enough and too expensive to replace coal. Germany will have to directly replace coal with renewables

1

nhomewarrior t1_j4cbv0g wrote

Not just coal, but lignite coal. There is no dirtier fuel on this planet.

5

marcoevich t1_j4aw9wf wrote

Last week there where a few hundred protesters. This weekend there are tens of thousands of protesters from all over Europe, including the famous activist Greta Thunberg.

4

nhomewarrior t1_j4e5mvs wrote

Not sure there's much to be done at this point. Germans made their bed and now they'll have to make do. If that means swallowing enough of the countryside to be seen from orbit, then so be it.

1

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_j4bymtl wrote

Yeah, they've been spamming all social platforms for the past week. No surprises there. Omitting the fact the said village is collection of empty dilapidated buildings that were boarded up years ago. Also omitting the fact about all the concessions they already got, among other that the coal burning plants will be closed 8 years sooner than originally planned, and that the expansion of the mine is much smaller than originally planned.

0

derottbotee t1_j4dn85c wrote

Village is a pretty big term for essentially like 5 houses that haven’t been inhabited for years

3

DeNoodle t1_j4gqqrz wrote

I bet these are the same kind of idiots that cheered when Germany shuttered nuclear power. Anti-Nuclear = Pro-Carbon.

2

Calcutec_1 t1_j4d6onl wrote

I support the protesters, but the headline is misleading, the tiny village is already empty and deserted, the protest is about not harvesting the brown coals underneath for obvious enviromental reasons, not to “save a village” as the headline might lead you to belive

1

1CDoc t1_j4dilui wrote

This photograph tells an awesome sad story. Farms, households, likely generations lived on being devoured by the fossil fuel industry. But wait there is hope on the horizon, windmills! Sad that this village and much more destruction is to come prior to humanity shifting to a more sustainable natural future. Great photo, 1/3 mine, 1/3 village (existing life), 1/3 horizon (future)! Powerful! Thanks to the photographer!

1

nhomewarrior t1_j4cat0l wrote

But they put up so many solar panels! I can't believe they don't provide enough energy for a country as equitorial and sunny as Germany!

After all, nuclear power is dangerous 🙄

0

intoxicatednoob t1_j4etjoh wrote

This must be for that new clean coal I keep hearing about. The world should rally to block this, find energy in nuclear or clean energy.

0

Spekingur t1_j4fi49o wrote

This coal is important. Its structure make it excellent for tar steel.

Tar steel is needed for the gateways, and the gateways are important for -

0

Greaser_Dude t1_j4euok2 wrote

This is the legacy of Angela Merkel outsourcing energy production to Russia to satisfy her environmentalist base. Now Germans don't have enough heat to get through to winter because Russian energy is no longer an option.

−1