“P.S. We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” Berlin’s foreign ministry taunts Republican presidential candidate.

Germany’s foreign ministry hit back Wednesday at former U.S. President Donald Trump after he criticized the country’s energy policy at the presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump slammed Germany in his closing remarks, claiming Berlin regretted its decision to transition to renewable energy.

But the German foreign ministry took umbrage at that, blasting Trump in an unusually blunt statement on social media.

“Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50 percent renewables,” the ministry wrote. “And we are shutting down — not building — coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.”

  • Jumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    There are reasonable and cost-effective alternatives to nuclear, to planes in many cases not so much. Also a plane crash doesn’t leave whole towns uninhabitable for centuries or needs special places to store burned fuel

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      There are both much safer (than Chernobyl or Fukushima or whatever) reactor models and fast-neutron reactors that can reduce the amount of spent fuel to be stored.

      About reasonable and cost-effective alternatives - with bigger storage expenses and grid losses.

      IMHO a good grid has at the same time a few nuclear stations (no, not those which will be inevitably shut down, but those which are being prolonged or replaced as the time passes), a huge amount of renewable sources, storage to alleviate spikes\falls of said renewable sources and backup coal stations.

      And German grid is connected to a few others, so that they themselves have gotten rid of nuclear energy doesn’t matter much, with unified grids.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it’s not an “if”.

      Honestly,I feel like I’m back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it’s about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around “But tHe ecOnOMy”.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

      • Jumi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        27 days ago

        “Safest”, that’s why we need to think generations ahead to make signs that make clear forever that whatever is behind it shouldn’t be touched.

        I feel the same, first pro-oil and now pro-nuclear.

        We have safer and cheaper regenerative options and it’s about damn time we utilise them.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn’t lie. You can’t just just throw out science and data when it doesn’t serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.

          • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            Where will you put the nuclear waste? Germany doesn’t even have the concept of a plan where to put theirs, they are currently keeping it

            a) in a corroding salt mine, that is currently leaking water and will poison the entire area’s ground water within 20 years, so it’ll have to be dug up again, which will cost many billions b) in above ground ‘temporary’ holding facilities c) shipping it off to other countries

            None of this is sustainable. Until the waste problem is solved, we shouldn’t even think about building out nuclear.

            • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              27 days ago

              It has already been solved, and a search should tell you all about it.

              I’m still on mobile, so sharing links is still a pain, but a few key things:

              Nuclear waste is produced quite slowly, so whatever cost you associate with storage is over a large period of time; we have the technology to build centrals that can use that waste to produce more energy, reducing waste even further.

              • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                27 days ago

                No, it’s not. There are ways to recycle parts of the fuel rods, true, but not the thousands of tons of contaminated material that inevitably gather during operations and end-of-life of a reactor. You don’t honestly think that the only dangerous waste are spend fuel rods?

                And yes, the very problem is that storage needs to take place over geologic timescales. I can’t guarantee that our government will exist 20 years from now, much less 2000. Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years. Forgive me if I have little faith whenever someone claims that they’ll just dig a hole and forget about it for a few millennia. The waste sites need maintenance, and if that ever ends might poison a region’s ground water in perpetuity.

                • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  26 days ago

                  The materials you mention are classified as “low level waste”, and they are “materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity”, and they actually make up 94% of waste in the Uk, but according to this article, it’s 95%.

                  96% of spent nuclear fuel is Uranium, which can be reused.

                  Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years

                  Purely anecdotal; here’s a different anecdote.

                  Here’s is also a National Geographic article about this topic, and here is another.

                  Here is also the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022. You’ll notice that after heavy R&D in renewables, nuclear is still the second safest; with all top three being really close, but hydro being a far 4th.

                  Please stop with the fear based, anti-scientific, rhetoric. I shouldn’t feel like I’m arguing with climate deniers or pro oilers when talking with supposed environmentalists. Which reminds of the reason why this is so important: renewables alone still can’t meet the energy demand without the assistance of fossil fuels, and the energy requirements keep rising:

                  Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years” - they are accounting for nuclear, but nevertheless: “Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026”.

                  Almost half, by 2026, accounting for nuclear. And we are still getting warmer.