Close Menu
    Welt

    Deutschland zerstört im Rahmen des Atomausstiegsplans zwei Kühltürme von Kernkraftwerken

    Share.
    View 24 Comments

    24 Kommentare

    4. Accomplished_Tip3597 on

      Always funny how every energy company in Germany waited for these days and will never touch nuclear energy again because it is so incredibly expensive and the experts on reddit always say how stupid this decision was…

      Guys seriously if the companies that would profit the most from it already said that they don’t want to have nuclear plants in Germany then why don’t you just believe them when they say that it’s too expensive and risky?

    5. Calm-Scallion-8540 on

      We feel better when we burn coal and pollute our neighbors‘ atmosphere.

    7. Chankla_Rocket on

      They were trying to destroy the time-loop pocket universe created in that show Dark.

    8. joinity on

      These are old towers that haven’t ran for 8 years. Everyone with a brain knows renewables like solar and wind plus a good battery box grid can actually power 100% of the world, Germany already gets 100% renewable energy on some days.

      Batteries are dirt cheap now and their ROI is insane if paired with renewables, it’s a money making cash cow and everyone will soon realize. Nobody needs old fission.

    15. Certainly-Not-A-Bot on

      This is just insane. Even if you don’t want nuclear power, cooling towers can be used for coal or this new data center fad that’s happening, or something else that generates lots of heat. Don’t destroy useful infrastructure because you don’t like its vibes

    16. Jukebox32 on

      The amount of people saying uninformed stuff in these comments is really annoying.

      The reason why there was a big anti-nuclear movement here in germany was NOT mainly because of the fear of nuclear meltdowns but instead the issue of long term storage of nuclear waste. One of the first long term storage sites (Asse) started leaking water and became unsustainable very quickly and there was tons of corruption around the site selection process.
      For example Gorleben was chosen as a long term storage site, even though it hadn’t even made it into the top 10 most suitable sites that were selected for being qualified.
      It’s easy to be for nuclear power and talk down to people who are critical when its not going to be stored next to where you live. I am probably somewhat biased here, as I have family near one of those proposed sites, but I think it’s unreasonable for anyone to tell me, that they can guarantee that the geological conditions are going to be stable and predictable for the kind of timeframes we are talking about here.

      When its near a place you or your family live and where you might be planning for future generations to live, I think its understandable that people are critical.

    21. 1401Ger on

      Half this comment section seems to just make things up based on their preformed opinion. Fact is Germany always had less than 1/3 of its power from nuclear and phasing out nuclear only temporarily delayed the decrease in use of expensive and dirty coal plants: [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung_in_Deutschland](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung_in_Deutschland)

      [This graph of total cost per technology (source, Fraunhofer ISE) should say more than words](https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-of-electricity/jcr:content/contentPar/sectioncomponent/sectionParsys/imagerow/imageComponent1/image.img.4col.large.png/1728050961342/Levelized-Cost-of-electricity-2024.png)

      Could Germany have made the strategic decision to go strongly into expensive but reliable nuclear similar to France? Yes, but that would have to be done decades ago, planning and building nuclear power plants takes a long time.

    23. Cerebral_Grape on

      Dismantled or Disassembled are the constructive words that should have been used.

      These units have been decommissioned since 2021.

    Leave A Reply